Misplaced Pages

Talk:Frank VanderSloot: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:08, 11 September 2012 editRhode Island Red (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,311 edits →bold edits changing the stable version from 27 July: pointing out blatant hypocrisy in rejection of sources← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:49, 25 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,122 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|listas=VanderSloot, Frank L.|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|listas=VanderSloot, Frank L.}} {{WikiProject Biography }}
{{WikiProject Business}} {{WikiProject Business |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=Start|importance=low|ID=yes|ID-importance=low}} {{WikiProject Marketing & Advertising |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Requested articles|class=}} {{WikiProject United States |importance=low |ID=yes |ID-importance=low}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 9
|minthreadsleft = 2
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(15d)
|archive = Talk:Frank VanderSloot/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=15 |units=days |index=/Archive index }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}} }}
{{Image requested|people of Idaho}}

==Untitled==
I just added a link to this article: It raises ] issues, but I think it's fairly reliable, and as long as we describe it as 'allegations' rather than state it as fact, I think it can go in the article. ] (]) 19:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

==Criticisms==
Currently, over 50% of the criticism section are direct quotes from the subject. It should probably be focused on detailing the criticisms as opposed to the subject's responses. Additionally, I am not sure the wording conforms to community guidelines. This page will likely receive additional traffic as the subject is the media attention. However, I am not very sure what should be done. ] (]) 01:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

: I have added a summarized version of some of the complaints leveled against him, as including a section that has him responding to accusations without stating what he was accused of is pretty absurd. ] (]) 02:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, I think the criticism should probably be moved to it's own section, as it doesn't really fit the content that surrounds it, and it's the main reason why people will be visiting the page now. ] (]) 18:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

== Pyramid Selling, Multilevel Marketing, and Direct Marketing. ==

There seems to be a little confusing about exactly how Melaleuca works, and I think this is important for the article. Some sources say it is a ] model, such as the and the . Pyramid selling links to ], which is '''not''' what these sources are saying. It looks like they are describing ], which is different enough that it's legal. Although that term has very negative connotation, I can't really find any difference between what Melaleuca does and the strict definition of multilevel marketing. Melaleuca itself uses the term ], which is a very vague article in this context. As far as I can tell, they are not explaining that it's different from multilevel marketing so much as emphasizing that the seller doesn't have to keep the product on-hand, hence direct. Since most secondary sources, even fairly flattering ones such as the use some variation of multilevel marketing I think we should go with that. This official makes it very, very clear that they use a multilevel marketing model. Just because they call it something else, it is screamingly obvious that it is a multilevel marketing company. ] (]) 05:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

::'''Response'''. "Pyramid selling" is indeed a very negative term. Why use a term that libels the reputation of Melaleuca as well as libels the name of Frank VanderSloot when it does not at all describe the business activities of the company?

::The Forbes article you mention is clearly an article about Frank VanderSloot, not an article on Melaleuca's business model. There is no evidence that the author of the Forbes article spent any time at all researching Melaleuca's business model. It is doubtful that she would consider herself an expert on that issue. An argument was made in Forbes the month following the month that the article appeared that pointed out that calling Melaleuca a "pyramid selling organization" was inappropriate. () While Forbes may be a reliable source for some things, its calling Melaleuca a pyramid selling organization was criticized immediately. Using an article that was immediately disputed by those who know more about the issue than the author seems to be unfair and significantly biased.

::'''PYRAMID SELLING AND PYRAMID SCHEMES'''
::The concepts of "pyramid scheme" (illegal) and "pyramid selling" (questionable but perhaps legal) both typically have to do with requiring some type of investment with the hope of getting several others to make the same or similar investment, thereby receiving back far more than the original investment. These types of schemes are risky, and they often damage people's lives. The risk is that after someone makes their investment, they may not be able to entice someone else to make a similar investment. They stand to lose everything that they invested. Pyramid selling, by its very nature, needs some kind of investment by its participants to build the pyramid. In Melaleuca's model there is no investment of any kind, nor is any inventory purchased. Melaleuca's model could never be deemed "pyramid selling" because it lacks any investment or outlay of cash.

::Many MLM companies do indeed use a very similar model, requiring participants to purchase product inventory and entice others to purchase inventory. They try to legitimize their model by requiring the resale of the inventory to others. This methodology has been upheld to be legal and is called “multilevel marketing” (MLM). Melaleuca's model is the antithesis of both “MLM” and "pyramid selling" because there is no investment by participants and no reselling of product. There are, in fact, no multiple levels of distribution whatsoever (). The company sells directly to the customer. Because of that, it cannot be accurately called either "MLM" or "pyramid selling". That's why it is called "consumer direct marketing". Melaleuca’s model could correctly be described as "referring selling", but it does not engage in multilevel selling or pyramid selling.

::According to the , pyramid selling is “a practice adopted by some manufacturers of advertising for distributors and selling them batches of goods. The first distributors then advertise for more distributors who are sold subdivisions of the original batches at an increased price. This process continues until the final distributors are left with a stock that is unsaleable except at a loss.”

::The defines pyramid selling as: “in business, when someone buys the right to sell a company's goods, and then sells the goods to other people. These people then sell the goods to other people.”

::Melaleuca’s business model clearly does not fit either definition.

::Not only is Melaleuca’s business model not pyramid selling or MLM, Melaleuca’s business model is specifically designed to ''prevent'' pyramid selling and multi-level marketing. .

::'''DIRECT SELLING & MLM VS. DIRECT MARKETING'''
::There's a great difference between "direct ''selling''" and "''direct marketing''." Both types of selling are represented by different national associations.

::Direct selling is defined by the as: "the sale of a consumer products or services, <em style="background-color: yellow">person-to-person</em>, away from a fixed retail location, marketed through independent sales representatives who are sometimes also referred to as consultants, distributors or other titles."

::Since no <em style="background-color: yellow">"person-to-person"</em> sales occur in Melaleuca's model, Melaleuca's methodology could never accurately be described as "direct selling."

::Multilevel Marketing (MLM) is defined by the as "a type of compensation plan found in <em style="background-color: yellow">direct selling</em>."

::Since MLM is by definition is only done by <em style="background-color: yellow">direct selling</em> companies, and Melaleuca is not a direct selling company it cannot be an MLM.

::''Direct marketing'' "is the business of selling goods or services directly to the public e.g. by direct mail, telephone, Internet sales, catalog sales, rather than through retail outlets." According to the , those activities (internet sales, telephone sales, etc) are specifically ''not'' Direct Selling. Virtually ''none'' of Melaleuca's sales occur "person-to-person." Virtually ''all'' of Melaleuca's sales occur through a physical catalogue or online catalogue. Sales occur on the internet or via the telephone directly with the company.

::According to Misplaced Pages, ] "is a channel-agnostic form of advertising that allows businesses and nonprofits to communicate directly to the customer, with advertising techniques such as mobile messaging, e-mail, interactive consumer websites, online display ads, flyers, <em style="background-color: yellow">catalog distribution</em>, promotional letters, and outdoor advertising." This describes Melaleuca's business as all of Melaleuca's sales occur through either physical catalog or online catalog and occur over the telephone or through the Internet, and all of Melaleuca's messaging to its customers occurs through, their published catalog or through mobile messages, e-mail, interactive consumer websites, online display ads, flyers, etc.

::Melaleuca is clearly a ''direct marketing'' company but not a ''direct selling'' company.

::Multilevel marketing has legal definitions as defined by several state statutes. All of the legal definitions from the various states refer to different levels of ''distribution''. Louisiana: LAC 16:111.503 (2010); Maryland: Md. Business Regulation Code Ann. S 14-301 (2010); Massachusetts: ALM GL ch.93, S 69(a) (2010); Montana: M.C.A. S 30-10-324(3)(c) (2010) Melaleuca does not have any multiple levels of distribution. In Melaleuca's model, product moves directly from the company to the customer. Therefore, Melaleuca's model does not fit any existing state definitions of Multilevel Marketing.

::Describing Melaleuca's business model as "pyramid selling" is highly problematic in that it would not only be inaccurate, it is perhaps libelous because of the extreme negative connotation of that term. Using the term "MLM" to describe Melaleuca's model may not be libelous, but is clearly grossly inaccurate. ] (]) 10:23, 21 May 2012

:::Thank you for that detailed response. I've got a few points I'd like to bring up:

:::You're right about the term 'pyramid selling'. Although I don't believe it is libelous, it is polarizing and misleading. It was taken from the Forbes article, mainly as a compromise with someone who disagreed with the term multilevel marketing, since it was directly cited as such.

:::First of all, I am very weary of Youtube videos being used as citations here. It's bad form for Misplaced Pages, but I'm especially cautious for this topic. You may have noticed that there are a LOT of videos about Melaleuca on Youtube, many of them are very promotional in nature, and cannot be used as a non-biased source, and most of the rest of them are blatant attacks against melaleuca (usually as a back-handed promotion for some other home-based marketing model). If we can find a video from a legitimate news organization, I would be okay, but otherwise, I don't think those are going to fly. What we need, what what we ''always'' need it seems, are reliable, neutral sources. We don't have any about Melaleuca's business model, as most sources I can find are either very vaguely in praise of VanderSloot as a businessman, or journalistic comments about his conservative political activities.

::: What do you mean 'no "person-to-person" sales occur'? How are sales made then? My understanding is that people introduce the product line to others, who then order and receive the product from the factory-warehouse. It is still person to person, isn't it? The people involved are independent representative selling away from fixed retail organizations, aren't they? Also, you have linked to the wrong site. The Direct Sellers Association is at , and <em style="background-color: yellow">Melaleuca is a member of that organization</em>. Here is their . The important thing to note here is that I see no evidence that Melaleuca cannot be both ] and ]. The two concept are not mutually exclusive, and it appears that Melaleuca is both.

:::As for MLM, you have described many of the reasons why MLM has a bad wrap, but those are not things that define MLM. There are many disreputable MLM companies, but that doesn't mean that all MLMs are disreputable. As I said initially, Nobody here is saying that Melaleuca is disreputable. They have made it very clear that they do not want to be considered an MLM, for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean that they aren't, technically, an MLM. The definition of ], from the first sentence of the Misplaced Pages article:

:::<blockquote>"Multi-level marketing (MLM) is a marketing strategy in which the sales force is compensated not only for sales they personally generate, but also for the sales of others they recruit, creating a downline of distributors and a hierarchy of multiple levels of compensation."</blockquote>

:::They may very well be the 'good guys' in the MLM world, but they distribute percentage based commission to independent sales-people, as well as the people who initially recruit those sales-people. That makes them a multilevel marketing company, end of story.] (]) 02:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There is another issue with the usage of the term "multilevel marketing" related to the Forbes article. The Forbes article never describes Melaleuca's business model as "multilevel marketing." The only quote even reminiscent of such a description states, "And, in a departure from many multilevel marketing schemes, VanderSloot is insistent about not burdening new recruits with huge startup costs or a garageful of inventory." () The author is identifying characteristics that distinguish Melaleuca from multilevel marketing rather than indicate its inclusion. Essentially, the citation to the Forbes article is a misquotation. (] (]) 22:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC))

:That's a good point. The Forbes article actually says 'pyramid selling', which as RoadPeace mentions above, is misleading because of its similarity to 'pyramid scheme'. The article on MLM does list pyramid selling as another name for multilevel marketing, though, and that was the term I used at one point. Since ] is a redirect to ], I thought it would be clearer and less confrontational to change it to ] and avoid any euphemistic redirects.

:The problem is that there are few neutral terms for it, maybe because any neutral way to describe it becomes adopted by less-scrupulous companies in order to disguise and glamorize what they do, thus debasing the new term. I'm not really entirely comfortable with using the term 'multilevel marketing', but I don't think it would be appropriate to use doublespeak that obscures what Melaleuca does, either. ] (]) 03:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

::There's a good reason to be uncomfortable with calling Melaleuca's model "MLM" or "multilevel marketing. "Melaleuca simply does not use a multilevel marketing model. You would have to be pretty unfamiliar with MLM or with Melaleuca's model to suggest that it does.

::To understand the term, "multilevel marketing" it may be helpful to refer to the history of that term. In the early 60s several firms sprang up that used this model. Companies like Holiday Magic and Amway sold products to distributors who resold the product to others. In the Amway model, a distributor would have to do a certain volume in order to qualify for the level of "direct distributor" which allowed them to purchase directly from the company. "Direct distributors" would purchase large quantities of product and stock that product in their garage and make it available to other distributors in their downline. Those distributors would take possession of product and move it to their own garage and make it available to distributors in their downlines. In that model, product moved from distributor to distributor. Multilevel marketing came to mean multiple levels of distribution. In today's world, in MLM companies, product often moves several levels but at least two levels, i.e. first level = from company to distributor, second-level= from distributor customer. The risk inherent here is that distributor must invest in and maintain an inventory. If the distributor cannot resell the product, they are stuck with losing money on their original investment. Most MLM companies focus on moving product to their distributors. Often, very little of that product ever gets to end consumers. Many people investing in inventories get hurt because they lose money on their investment in inventory. The direct selling Association has beefed up its code of ethics to require companies to purchase back these inventories, when distributors decide to throw in the towel and stop trying to sell the product. But many MLM's try to avoid the buyback provisions required by the DSA, therefore leaving distributors out to dry and giving MLM a bad name.

::It is important to note that with Melaleuca there is no person-to-person sales. The company creates and handles all sales transactions. Marketing executives simply refer customers to the company. A record is kept of who referred the customer and the person making the referral gets a small commission whenever the customer buys. That is a far cry from the MLM model. A huge difference is there is no inventory kept by the marketing executive, no investment, no way to get hurt, no reselling of product, and no appearance of any MLM type activities whatsoever.

::<em style="background-color: yellow;">Repeating the definition of Multilevel marketing in Misplaced Pages you refer to:
::"Multilevel (MLM) is a marketing strategy in which the sales force is compensated not only for sale they personally generate but also for the sales of others they ::recruit, creating a downline of '''distributors''' and a hierarchy of multiple levels of compensation."</em>

::The operative word here is '''"distributors"'''. To be a distributor one must '''distribute''' something. That word, alone, disqualifies Melaleuca from being multilevel marketing. Melaleuca marketing executives do not '''distribute''' anything. Therefore, they are not '''distributors'''. There is also no '''downline''' of '''distributors'''. The use of the word '''distributor''' is no accident here. All legal definitions from the various states that define MLM or multilevel marketing define it as having multiple levels of '''"distribution"'''. With there are no multiple levels of distribution and no downlines. Hence Melaleuca does not practice multilevel marketing.

::Summary:
::* Melaleuca does not fit the Direct Selling Association definition of Multilevel Marketing.
::* Melaleuca’s business model does not fit any existing state or federal definition MLM.
::* Melaleuca does not fit Misplaced Pages’s definition of MLM
::* Melaleuca does not fit any traditional or even non-traditional definition of MLM

::Therefore, only an extremely biased person would try to cram Melaleuca into the MLM box when it just simply does not fit. One would have to have some significant bias to continue to insist on doing that.

::Melaleuca has aptly defined itself as operating a Consumer direct marketing model. It compensates people on referrals they make to the company. There is no valid argument that suggests that Melaleuca does not practice consumer direct marketing. And there is ample evidence that Melaleuca uses the referral marketing model to refer customers to the business. It's been doing that for 26 years. ] (]) 12:50, 24 May 2012

:::I disagree with a major point of your contention. What you described would be accurately called 'multilevel distribution'. While MLM and 'MLD' (if you will) have been historically linked, they are not the same thing. Again, from ]:
:::<blockquote>"Network Marketing" and "Multi-level Marketing" have been described by author Dominique Xardel as being synonymous, and as methods of direct selling. <em style="background-color: yellow;">According to Xardel, "direct selling" and "network marketing" refer to the distribution system, while the term "multi-level marketing" describes the compensation plan.</em> Other terms that are sometimes used to describe multi-level marketing include "word-of-mouth marketing", "interactive distribution", and "relationship marketing". Critics have argued that the use of different terms and "buzzwords" is an effort to distinguish multi-level marketing from illegal Ponzi schemes, chain letters, and consumer fraud scams. Some sources classify multi-level marketing as a form of direct selling rather than being direct selling.</blockquote>
:::I don't know who the 'Direct Selling Association' is, as there website you linked to appears down at the moment. The (of which Melaleuca is a member) has numerous MLMs as members, including . If Amway is a direct seller, and also an MLM, why can't Melaleuca be the same? In fact, according to , more than 90% of direct sellers are MLMs. We are in agreement that they are direct marketers. I think their membership in the DSA shows that they are also direct sellers. So what definition of MLM are you referring to?
:::From the :
:::<blockquote>"Q. What is the difference between direct selling and multilevel marketing?</blockquote>
:::<blockquote>A. Direct selling refers to a distribution method, whereas multilevel marketing refers more specifically to a type of compensation plan found in direct selling. A direct selling company that offers a multilevel compensation plan pays its representatives/distributors based not only on one's own product sales, but on the product sales of one's "downline" (the people a representative/distributor has brought into the business, and, in turn, the people they have brought into the business)."</blockquote>
:::Melaleuca's own trade organization includes both representatives AND distributors as being viable for inclusion in MLM compensation. likewise does not make a distinction between distributor and representative for determining MLM status. I have not looked into any other government positions yet.
:::Since I do not concede the first three points on your list, I find the last one to be flawed as well. Melaleuca fits most traditional definitions of an MLM. ] (]) 23:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

::'''Response:''' You clearly do not have knowledge of which you are writing. It is called the Direct Selling Association, (not the Direct Selling Association of America.) Melaleuca Inc. is a member of several trade associations. Just because it is a member of the Direct Selling Association does not mean it is a "direct seller." In fact the associations definition for "direct selling" states that a direct seller, by definition, is involved in person-to-person sales. As pointed out above, Melaleuca's model does not include person-to-person sales. It's clear that you do not understand that. The fact that you do not understand it or do not concede it does not make it any less true. Just because Melaleuca has some things in common with direct selling, and, in general, must operate under the same laws and guidelines as direct sellers, and therefore finds it to its own advantage to be a member of the direct selling Association, does not mean it is a direct seller.

::The Montana definition that you refer to above states: "Multilevel marketing firms sell goods or services through independent agents." Again, Melaleuca does not sell goods or services through independent agents. The company handles all of the sales transactions directly with the customer. The independent agents do not sell any goods or services whatsoever. They only refer customers and register those customers with the company. They do not make sales. How many times do I have to repeat this and how many different ways do I have to say it before you understand? Melaleuca does not meet the definition of a direct selling company. Neither does it meet any definition of multilevel marketing.

::Misplaced Pages rules are that Misplaced Pages editors must come from a neutral point of view. <em style="background-color: yellow">Your repeated insistence on defining Melaleuca in a negative light makes it clear that you are not operating from a neutral point of view</em>. You have admitted that MLM has a negative connotation. “Consumer direct marketing" and "referral marketing" are much more accurate than the terms you are suggesting. Besides being far more accurate, these terms are neither positive nor negative. What is your personal stake in this? Why do you insist on using terms that do not at all define Melaleuca's model and which, by your own definition are negative terms and therefore do not come from a neutral point of view? ] (]) 9:26, 25 May 2012

:::To answer your question, I have no personal stake in this. None. Do you? I called it the Direct Selling Association of America because there are several different organization by that name based out of different countries, and my understanding is that some of the other ones are pretty sketchy. I thought it worthwhile to make it clear which one I was referring to. That's all I meant by that. As for the positive or negative connotations of MLM as a term, my point has always been that those connotations are not intrinsic to the term itself. Although the term has a lot of baggage, there is nothing illegal or inherently unethical about MLM, so if Melaleuca is MLM, we should call it that. Let me make it clear that it is not my intention, by calling Melaleuca an MLM, to cast it in a negative light. I am simply trying to describe it as what it is. So far, you're arguments against that definition haven't persuaded me that it isn't, and your repeated use of heavily promotional ] sources also fail to persuade me. Simply because everything is distributed from a central location doesn't, as I understand it, mean that the sales aren't considered 'person to person'. It's your contention that I am mistaken about that. I think it's clear we need a few additional sets of eyes on this page, so I am posting a notice on the ]. Hopefully we can get a few more experienced editors to help us out. ] (]) 21:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
:::Here is a link to that notice, ], for convenience. ] (]) 22:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
::::Arriving here from BLPN -- I agree with Grayfell's approach to this issue, and in general with the idea that we shouldn't be over-using primary sources here. ] (]) 05:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
:The Forbes article makes it clear that the Melaleuca model is a ''departure from'' Multi-Level Marketing Schemes therefore it is not a multi-level marketing scheme but rather “''a departure from''”. It is clearly not accurate or fair to label Melaleuca an MLM when Forbes states it is a departure from that model. The term direct marketing better describes the model in that Melaleuca customers buy directly from a catalog which is definitely direct marketing.

:Melaleuca’s model fits all conventional definitions of ] (). Melaleuca does not meet any conventional definitions of multi-level marketing (there are no multiple levels of anything!). It doesn’t serve a NPV to label Melaleuca something that it is not.

:Using the term MLM to define Melaleuca whose membership avidly despises the MLM model is contentious. This is extremely contentious and damages the company and Frank Vandersloot’s reputation unfairly and wrongly. WP:BLP rules state “Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” --] (]) 15:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
::You have misread the source. It does not say "in a departure from multilevel marketing schemes", it says "<u>in a departure from ''many'' multilevel marketing schemes</u>". In other words, this article offers the view that Melaleuca is a MLM model with a difference on a single aspect. Also note that in the ''Vandersloot himself'' says that Melaleuca is a MLM firm. ] (]) 17:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
:::I have been watching the debate on this talk page with some amusement. Suggesting that Frank VanderSloot was talking about Melaleuca, Inc when he mentioned that he was operating an MLM company documents the writer is either extremely biased or totally uninformed as to the history of Frank VanderSloot and Melaleuca. Anyone who knows the history of the company at all knows the following: In December of 1984, Frank VanderSloot was recruited by Roger Ball to join the newly-formed Oil of Melaleuca, Inc as its CEO. (That was an entirely different company than Melaleuca, Inc.) Oil of Melaleuca, Inc was a multi-level Marketing company. The company had already been operating for 3 months when Frank Became CEO in March of 1985. It was Frank’s first and only experience with MLM. The company only lasted 7 months. It had marginal success in its first few months, but then failed, partly because of its MLM model. People were purchasing inventories of starter kits, but very little product was being resold to end consumers. In August 1985, Oil of Melaleuca closed its doors. In the 5 months of operating Oil of Melaleuca, Frank VanderSloot learned a great deal about MLM. He became very critical of the fact that MLM models are usually designed to sell inventories to unsuspecting get-rich-quick wannabes rather than selling product to end-users. MLM usually requires an investment of some type and only pays off if the participant gets others to make a similar investment. The result is that the first guy in wins and the last guy in loses. Frank thought that he could design a program that still offered a business opportunity to those who referred customers, but would avoid the MLM aspects altogether. He thought that a system where the company would carry the inventory and handle all sales transactions to consumers would create a viable company where every sale was to an end user rather than end up in someone’s garage. It was a model that was more similar to the corporate world he had come from. He launched a new company in September of 1985. He tried to approach the MLM distributors who had joined Oil of Melaleuca. They felt that selling tiny amounts to customers rather than large orders to distributors would not be a viable fast track to the wealth they were seeking. They left to join various MLM opportunities then in operation. But a few of the customers of Oil of Melaleuca did stay and some eventually referred other customers. Since Melaleuca’s customer referral model was so different from MLM, and since it resembled direct marketing rather than direct sales, the new model became known as “Consumer Direct Marketing.” Besides selling directly to customers, Melaleuca implemented several other principles that would never be found in any MLM company. For example, MLM companies traditionally reward large purchases and large investments with extra bonuses and larger discounts. This factor is what gives MLM its bad name in that it induces greater investments in inventory and creates greater risk and often financial disaster for the distributers who participate. Yet it is the concept that MLM’s thrive on.

:::Melaleuca does the opposite. Not only does Melaleuca not give extra incentives to larger purchases, it does not give any commissions on sales of over $150 per month, thereby eliminating any temptation for anyone to make an investment in inventory. Such a tactic would destroy any MLM company! This is just one difference. The list of opposites between Melaleuca’s model and MLM companies is endless. Frank VanderSloot has spent the last 26 years criticizing the MLM model in that it often destroys lives and often does not produce sales to end consumers. He has criticized the MLM model to the both the US Direct Selling Association and the World Federation of Direct Sellers. He is so critical of MLM, he has offered a $ 10,000 dollar reward for anyone who can identify a single successful MLM company in the United States that has started in the last 30 years. He has publicly stated there are none. In that Melaleuca started only 26 years ago, if Melaleuca were MLM, he would be saying that Melaleuca is not successful-hardly a supportable position, given that Melaleuca hit $1 Billion dollars in sales last year.

:::The point is Melaleuca is not MLM and has almost nothing in common with MLM companies other than it offers a business opportunity. It offers that opportunity in a way that can be considered the opposite of MLM. Besides being totally different, there are simply no multiple levels of anything.

:::Melaleuca is successful partly because it is not MLM. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::Once again, we see someone using certain characteristics common to most MLMs as a generalized reason why Melaleuca somehow can't possible be a MLM. Find me a definition of MLM (from a reputable source, and NOT from a Meleleuca website!) that matches this line of thought, and bring it here. The idea that all of these finicky subtleties about how much is or isn't delivered at a time, or how strongly VanderSloot rejects the label, or the fact that they order from a catalog or website instead of from someone's garage, all miss the most important point. Multilevel marketing is about paying people who make sales a commission, and also paying the people who recruited those people a commission. By that reasoning, Melaleuca is a MLM company. ] (]) 01:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::Grayfell has asked for a definition of MLM “from a reputable source and NOT from a Melaleuca website” consistent with the notion that one of the distinguishing characteristics of an MLM is the existence of multiple levels of distributors making person-to-person sales of the product.

:::::Fortunately, the federal government has provided a definition of MLM that is entirely consistent with this problem and the approach I have advocated on this board. The FTC is the federal agency charged with the responsibility of regulating MLM companies as well as other business opportunities. Accordingly, one would expect that this federal agency’s publications would be considered as being the most reliable source on this topic. The FTC uses the following definition:

:::::“Multi-level marketing is one form of direct selling, and refers to a business model in which a company distributes products '''through a network of distributors''' who earn income '''from their own retail sales''' of the product and from '''retail sales made by the distributors’ direct and indirect recruits'''. Because they earn a commission '''from the sales their recruits make''', each member in the MLM network has an incentive to continue recruiting additional sales representatives into their ‘down lines.”

:::::

:::::At Melaleuca there are no “distributors,” there are no “down lines,” and marketing executives are not expected to make “sales” of any products. Consumers purchase and receive their products directly from Melaleuca. Under the definition promulgated by the federal government, Melaleuca <em style="background-color: yellow;">cannot be</em> an MLM because it does not “distribute products through a network of distributors” that earn income “from their own retail sales” or from “retails sales made by the distributors’ direct and indirect recruits.

:::::At bottom, I am confused by Grayfell’s insistence on using the term MLM to describe Melaleuca. There are numerous ways to accurately describe the company (consumer direct marketing, direct marketing, etc.). <em style="background-color: yellow;">None of those descriptors carry the negative connotation of an MLM (including the insidious practice of placing significant risk on participants by loading them with inventory for further distribution and sale)</em>. Given these issues, and the fact that the definition promulgated by the federal government supports the conclusion that Melaleuca is not an MLM, why not leave that descriptor off of this page? I do not know of any other issue that has been left on a WP:BLP as a '''statement of undisputed fact''' despite the living person’s repeated contentions to the contrary and numerous sources that would support the living person’s position. --] (]) 00:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

::::::What are you saying? If members (the term is not the important part) of Melaleuca Inc don't sell, in a broad sense of the term, then what do they do to earn money? They are marketing Melaleuca's products, aren't they? 'Consumer Direct ''Marketing''', right? Just because VanderSloot's warehouses keep all the stuff, is it not the responsibility of the members to encourage sales? Don't members get money in proportion to the amount of sales that are generated through their actions? If not through 'sales' then how? If I joined Melaleuca and recruited a bunch of people who never purchased anything or gave any money to Melaleuca, would I still be rewarded? You seem to feel that the physical chain of custody of the products is important, and I don't believe that it is. We don't consider the postal service to be a distributor. It's about how sales are generated, and how money is dispersed. You say 'numerous sources', but I still haven't seen one that meets reliability guidelines. ] (]) 06:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

===convenience break===
Roadpiece, this is getting disruptive. In my view, it is sufficient for this article that says that Melaleuca is a MLM firm. If you want to have a discussion of MLM in general, I suggest taking your concerns to that article. ] (]) 06:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

::You are confusing two different companies. In the article you refer to, VanderSloot calls <em style="background-color: yellow;">Oil of Melaleuca, Inc.</em> a multilevel marketing company. <em style="background-color: yellow;">Oil of Melaleuca, Inc.</em> was a totally different company than <em style="background-color: limegreen;">Melaleuca, Inc.</em> <em style="background-color: yellow;">Oil of Melaleuca, Inc.</em> was started by the Ball Brothers in 1984. That company was closed down after only 9 months of operation. <em style="background-color: limegreen;">Melaleuca, Inc.</em> was founded in September, 1985 with VanderSloot as CEO. In creating <em style="background-color: lime;">Melaleuca, Inc.</em>, VanderSloot threw away the MLM model. The <em style="background-color: limegreen;">Inc. Magazine</em> article you cite correctly refers to <em style="background-color: limegreen;">Melaleuca, Inc.</em> as a <em style="background-color: limegreen;">direct marketing company</em>. It correctly states that <em style="background-color: yellow;">Oil of Melaleuca, Inc.</em> was MLM, but, clearly does ''not'' suggest that <em style="background-color: limegreen;">Melaleuca, Inc.</em> was MLM. In fact, it states the opposite.--] (]) 18:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

== Mormon pedophiles ==

Claims linking any living person to support for "Mormon pedophiles/ Boy Scouts of America" is, IMO, a contentious claim requiring exceedingly strong sources - whcih are ''not'' provided. I suggest that this claim is a gros and egregious violation of ] and the edit warriors placing it in this article are violating ] in a gross and egregious manner. Cheers. ] (]) 13:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
:Re edit-warriors -- at this point you're the only one who has repeated any edits re this topic. ] (]) 13:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

: I don't see him supporting anyone, I see him as being quoted as "purchased multiple full-page advertisement in the investigating local paper discussing, among other things, the sexual orientation of the journalist breaking the story." Is this not true? It's incredibly well sourced. ] (]) 13:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


::You did not see the claim:
:::'''VanderSloot has also been criticized for his response to a series that exposed Mormon pedophiles working with children as part of the Boy Scouts of America''' ?
::I rather thought the linkage of VanderSloot to "Mormon pedophiles" was quite clear there indeed -- but you ''missed'' it? YMMV. ] (]) 13:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the BLP post has gotten stale I'm copying my thoughts here in case they are of value:
* To me it appears that we have two weak sources. A local newspaper (circulation 26,000) that is in direct dispute with the BLP subject and a psuedo-editorial by Salon (a web site that describes itself as "combining award-winning commentary and reporting"). These are not sufficient sources for contentious BLP information. In addition the current text as cited above is selective in its content and creates bias. However... I would support a neutral summary of the non-contentious information from the two sources being discussed, which I would word as follows:
*In 2005, Vanderloot challenged local news coverage of an event involving pedophiles and the Boy Scouts of American by placing 6 full page ads in the Post Register. In February 2012, Vaderloot was criticized by Glenn Greenwald of Salon, for his "chronic bullying" tactics and "frivolous lawsuits against his political critics".--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 00:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In order to support any claim of "frivolous lawsuits" we would need a source actually showing that such lawsuits were made and deemed frivolous by a court ("frivolous lawsuit" is a legal phrase with a precise meaning - we ought not perpetuate an incorrect usage of the term without strong sourcing for such a legally contentious claim.)
:''VanderSloot placed paid advertisements criticising articles linking child abuse with the Boy Scouts'' is what likely is sourceable.
No "frivolous lawsuit" charges even as opinion sans actual reliable sourcing that such lawsuits were filed and deemed "frivolous." Cheers. ] (]) 01:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
::I think you are correct. I believe WP:BLP specifies that lawsuits should be conclusive before being reported in a BLP and good sources are needed. And your proposed wording of the child abuse and Boy Scout thing is also better than what I suggested.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 17:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

== stick to what the sources state ==

The 'Mormon pedophiles" stuff was not even supported by the article cited - which said the articles were about the national BSA and the Grand Teton Council and a single pedophile - and were not about "mormon pedophiles" - the wording now conforms precisely with the sources used. Cheers. ] (])
:The previous version was fine, perfectly in conformity with the source (as indeed was the one before today's edits). ] (]) 12:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
: Collect, did you review the source material carefully? It never mentions multiple pedophiles? This would be a serious breach by Nomoskedasticity - misrepresenting sources like that. Can you confirm the source never states that the paper secured evidence about more than one recent pedophile? ] (]) 13:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
:::The Nieman paper stressed the ''single'' specific person in the articles. The Nieman article did not say it was the 'Mormon comunity leaders" who were at fault - it specified the Boy Scout Council involved. The article did not specify the other pedophiles, nor, as far as I can tell, did it specify that ''all'' the pedophiles were Mormon. Cheers. ] (]) 14:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
::I've added a reference to the , so that readers here can see directly for themselves what sort of people VanderSloot was defending. ] (]) 13:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Nieman article:
:''We later learned that the national Boy Scouts of America and its local Grand Teton Council had hired two of Idaho's best-connected law firms to seal the files and hide what came to be known as the Brad Stowell case.''
:'' By now the paper had secured evidence of four recent pedophiles in the local scout council, about as many documented cases as the 500,000-member Catholic diocese of Boston when that scandal erupted in The Boston Globe''
Note that the paper did not call them "mormon pedophiles" nor is it clear that all of them were or are Mormons. Making that link is SYNTH at that point. Nor does the newspaper editor satate that the cover-up was by "community leaders." Cheers - I think my revision is correct. ] (]) 14:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

:How about the current revision? I think that avoids the irrelevant issues, sticks to the sources and eliminates the POV issues. Are we good to pull the template down? — ] ] 16:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
::I think another term instead of "outed" as those who knew included the newspaper editor, his family, and his "friends" which likely made it ''fairly widely known'' would be reasonable. Miller, in fact, did ''not'' make that accusation about VanderSloot. Still an order of magnitude better than the edit that had Misplaced Pages say:
:::''exposing negligence by '''Mormon''' community leaders who had allowed known pedophiles to work with boy scouts in troops sponsored by the '''Mormon''' Church ''
::Which missed an ''opportunity'' to say " '''Mormon''' boy scouts" and "'''Mormon''' pedophiles" which would have gotten the intention to link "Mormon" to this very solid indeed.<g> ] (]) 16:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

::::The direct quote from Miller is "Peter Zuckerman, was not 'out' to anyone but family, a few colleagues at the paper (including me), and his close friends." I'd say Miller does make the outing accusation against VanderSloot, even if he did not use the phrase "VanderSloot outed Zuckerman." The narrative makes clear that the group of people who knew Zuckerman's orientation was initially limited to family, close friends and select colleagues, and that VanderSloot expanded that circle by about 25,000 people. That's an outing. — ] ] 17:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::Any particularly reason you removed ? ] (]) 20:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Anent the PR articles - they do ''not'' assert that the pedophiles were all "Mormons" - in fact, they do not associate of the unnamed pedophiles with any church. So much for the edits which stressed "Mormon pedophiles." Cheers. ] (]) 22:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
:I struck that citation because I didn't see how it provided a source to any of the content in the article. Let me know if I'm missing something, though, because I certainly haven't read through the entire series. — ] ] 14:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I copy edited per the source being used. Its to bad editors are taking this personally and not acting NPOV. Its best to leave feelings about subjects of bios at the door, no matter how strongly you feel. --] (]) 15:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
:The article is still biased. As written now it says in the section "LGBT issues" that "VanderSloot, in a newspaper advertisement, devoted several paragraphs to establishing that the reporter who had written articles about pedophiles being permitted to work with Boy Scouts in the Grand Teton Council was gay." It leaves out the part that says "We think it would be very unfair for anyone to conclude that is what is behind Zuckerman's motives." It's not enought to "stick to what the sources state". In order to remain neutral, the material included must not have "undue" weight. Just because the material is in a section about "LGBT issues" doesn't mean it can be selective and biased in ways that ] emphasize VS's anti-gay position. My point is not that VS is a supporter of LGBT issues. He clearly isn't. My point is that the article used in the source doesn't make clear at all what VS's stance is on homosexuality. The article isn't even about LGBT issues. It's about the Church, the Boy Scouts, abusive local power and integrity in journalism. Although the article does say VS pointed out that the author was gay, the way the current WP bio is written ''implies'' that VS defended pedophiles ''because'' the journalist was gay. So why did VS devote two paragraphs about the sexual orientation of the journalist? I don't know. The article doesn't make this clear. A neutral POV would require a different source for a statement on VS's stance on LGBT issues. ] (]) 07:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
::I would just add that having read every article on the subject I could find, there is no clear consensus on what VanderSloot's reason for discussing the journalist's sexual orientation was. His stated rational, which you quote, was somewhat at odds to the situation and contested by Zuckerman himself (as well as Greenwald, Maddow, and May-Chang). We need to be respectful of Zuckerman's BLP issues, as well. It would be nice to make this clear in the article if it is actually clear in reality, but it isn't. Maybe leaving it ambiguous and allowing readers to draw their own conclusions is the best way to approach it? I'm not sure. As for being under 'LGBT Issues', I would be happy to see the event given its own section, or the current section renamed something broader. ] (]) 08:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
:::I would probably agree with both the comments above. I just tried to copy edit the section slightly based on the citation given. I now or knew zippo about the subject of this article or the bru haha involved. I came here from the BLP board I believe, my memory sucks. Any time taking heads, Maddow or O'Reily, for example, get involved, be sure editors with POV will show up and edit accordingly. Coatside, maybe do a rewrite here based on your comment and then see what others think. Thanks and good luck. --] (]) 13:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
::::I also agree that the passage should simply state what happened without trying to interpret it. But here's the thing: that's what the passage as currently written does. ] (]) 16:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::@Nomoskedasticity, the problem is that you made your personally feelings known about the subject of this article, so I for one, would greatly discount your input into how this is written in a NPOV and balanced way. Just saying. --] (]) 17:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::Please provide a diff and a quote that establishes I have done this. As for other elements of your insinuation: I too arrived here from BLPN -- just like you. ] (]) 17:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I think shows your feelings, but that just me. --] (]) 17:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::::There are no feelings expressed in that post. You're invited to strike your comment above. ] (]) 17:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::If you can't see how that shows your distaste for the subject, then it reinforces my point. --] (]) 17:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::No distaste is expressed in that post. You're invited to strike your comment above. ] (]) 17:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Next thing you'll tell us is that you don't dislike the guy and that you even have friends like him, right? --] (]) 17:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::Here's what you've done, Mollskman: you have ]. This is disruptive: we are now discussing me instead of Frank VanderSloot. You are invited to strike your comment above. ] (]) 17:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}}You asked for something and I supplied it. I think its important that people don't interject their personal opinions about subject matter, especially BLPs, into article talk pages, which is what you did. I will allow you the last word, go ahead. --] (]) 17:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
:I did not ask for you to make a comment on me (as above at 17:12) -- least of all a mistaken one. Please strike it or I will do it for you (as you have repeatedly refused a request to abide by the Misplaced Pages policy I have pointed out to you). ] (]) 17:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Are other editors content to have the discussion here take place in this mode? Shall we generally engage in posts that are designed to delegitimize the participation of individual named editors? My attempts to collapse the discussion immediately above have been reverted; it's not hard to draw the conclusion that it should therefore continue in this fashion. ] (]) 13:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
:I see no egregious attacks which need to be hidden in any way. Cheers. ] (]) 13:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
:I am one of those lurking outsiders that make small edits from time to time. I am not really a Wikipedian. I do not know anything about VanderSloot. I have no vested interest in any aspect of this conversation. When someone well versed in English says something such as 'so that readers here can see directly for themselves what sort of people <some person> was defending', they are certainly casting <some person> in an unfavorable light, which indicates bias. A more unbiased phrase would be 'so readers here might have more information about the people involved in the controversy.' Consider if I wrote the following, 'Before you consider editing an article on Misplaced Pages, you should understand that you will have to deal with people like <editorXYZ>.' I feel certain that <editorXYZ> would feel that I had a bias against them. I could protest that my statement is unbiased because it is factual. But I do not think that <editorXYZ> would find that argument compelling. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Here's the thing about ], 198.160...: it doesn't say, "It's fine to make personal attacks as long as you think your attack is on target". It simply says don't make personal attacks. (After all, everyone around here always thinks they're right.) What I take from Collect's post is that there won't be any problem here as long as one's personal attacks are not egregious. ] (]) 18:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

== Deleting contested info with no consensus . . . ==

Hello. There seems to be no consensus on whether ML is a multi-level marketing organization, or just what it is, so I am removing that particular descriptor from the article. Moreover, there seems to be no particular controversy "in the outside world" about how ML should be described — the only controversy I have been able to find is taking place on this Talk Page. I think we can all agree that ML is " an Idaho Falls, Idaho,-headquartered company that sells home goods and health-related products," can't we? Sincerely, ] (]) 12:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

== Removal of misplaced link ==
I just removed an orphaned link to an outside site that was placed in the "See also" section. The link itself went to a PACER page that had links to paid case files. ] (]) 17:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

== bold edits changing the stable version from 27 July ==

This is to discuss whether consensus has changed - as one editor appears to wish - regarding this BLP. I consider a source named ''Get-Rich-Quick Profiteers Love Mitt Romney, and He Loves Them '' to possibly be an opinion article and not one on which to place facts in a ]. ] (]) 23:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
:Your lone objection does not constitute a consensus. The source in question was not discussed on this page prior to now. Furthermore, there was also a second source that I cited (also never discussed here) which you deleted without explanation, along with the accompanying text. If you are debating the reliability of one particular source, than begin a discussion here about it and see if you have consensus to delete it. In the meantime, you have no basis for ] over the text in question that refers to the company as an MLM. Furthermore, you hamfistedly deleted other information (such as the text about the DSA) that was completely unrelated to the MLM "issue" (and the source you are questioning) without offering any reason whatsoever. If you have an issue that you think requires any further discussion, then you can state it here and see if it gains any traction. In the meantime, I'll ask you nicely to stop deleting the text, because if you keep doing it, I;ll have to request that you be blocked. ] (]) 00:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
::Congrats on making clear your lack of understanding of the Five Pillars. ] requires strong sourcing for contenious claims - and the opinion pieces you seem to think are wonderful do ''not'' meet the criteria required. Cheers. ] (]) 00:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Nonsense, it's not a contentious claim. It's a very straightforward claim and I can swamp you with at least a dozen reliable references that solidly make the point that the company is an MLM, including several from the FTC, so I hope that's not an issue that you would dispute. The "issue" seems to boil down to your objection to one lone reference (out of four) -- that's the only argument you've given yet for removing the text mentioning MLM, which is accompanied by 3 other other reliable sources referring to the company as such; and you offered no justification at all for your sledgehammer removal of the text about the DSA, which is completely unrelated to MLM nomenclature and to the reference you're disputing. I really don't understand your approach here at all, or why you would say that there is consensus for removal of sources that were never discussed here before. ] doesn't equate to "it's OK to remove reliably sourced material if you ]" or "claim consensus where none exists". ] (]) 01:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
*For economic issues, Forbes is a strong secondary source, and they do bluntly call the company a . That does meet WP:RS criteria. No, Mother Jones isn't in the same league as a strong secondary source; it is non-neutral for political issues (so is Forbes, leaning to the other side), and not as good as an established newspaper or magazine on other issues. But that is clearly a sidebar to the main issue here. However, the Forbes article does have positive things to say about this guy; for an NPOV description, it would be good to pull that also in. ] (]) 02:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
::::I agree that Forbe's is a good source in this case (I disagree that Mother Jones would not be though), but just for the record, Forbes referred to it as a "pyramid selling" company, which is simply a synonym for ]; they did not literally call it a "pyramid scheme". The term MLM is innocuous and there are scads of sources that refer to it as such, so this shouldn't even be an issue; nor should one take umbrage to the term MLM as though it's a dirty word or a slap in the face. ] (]) 02:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::You ignored my last sentence. What you are extracting from the Forbes article does not meet ]. That article paints a picture of a complex man, one whose BLP would have made interesting reading. All you found in it was the MLM and LGBT stuff. Since I don't plan to edit this article, I won't comment here anymore. I assume the other major contributors will pull in other stuff from that source. ] (]) 03:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::Hit and run then. The suggestion that Forbe's does not meet ] seems ridiculous, as was the one-sided ] about the greatness of Vandersloot. The issue at hand was that there is no basis for removal of references to the company as an MLM. See ya. ] (]) 04:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::BTW, if you're going to bother driving by to influence a content debate, you might consider taking care to not misquote what the sources in question have written. As I pointed out above, Forbe's did not call Melaleuca a "pyramid scheme" (not that it would matter one way or the other); they called it a "pyramid selling company", which is a synonym for ] and has an entirely different meaning. Not only did you make this error, but you failed to acknowledge the error in your subsequent reply, yet you still insisted that a reputable source like Forbe's isn't NPOV for the use of the term "MLM" in the bio. Paradoxically, while rejecting Forbe's as a source for the "MLM" designation, you suggest that it should be mined for flattering material to say about Vandersloot? Is this response a joke? Some kind of bad performance art? ] (]) 05:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::And what exactly did this hit-and-run fluff comment mean: "All you found in it was the MLM and LGBT stuff"? Could you possibly have said anything more shallow and non-constructive? Seriously, I have no patience for the use of BS to influence content debates. ] (]) 05:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
:Rhode Island Red, the issues you have raised were already addressed multiple times MONTHS AGO by numerous editors. You have made no effort to address any of the issues that have been debated, other than to cite two inflammatory and obviously biased and non-neutral sources. Below, find a rebuttal to your recent erroneous arguments:

:First, the term MLM is not innocuous. Mr. VanderSloot has spent the past 26 years explaining how MLM companies hurt people’s lives while building a company that rejects MLM practices. Your effort to describe the company he founded using a term he has repeatedly lambasted is simply not NPOV.

:Second, the Forbes article cited here does not provide a reliable basis to declare that Melaleuca is an MLM. You ignore the fact that Mr. VanderSloot himself disputed the accuracy of the Forbes’ article, in Forbes:

:Moreover, the article does not make a serious effort to describe Melaleuca’s business model and as already discussed MONTHS AGO on this very talk page, it does not state that Melaleuca is a multi-level marketing company. In fact, the article CONTRASTS Melaleuca with multi-level marketing companies—“in a departure from many multilevel marketing schemes, VanderSloot is insistent about not burdening new recruits with huge startup costs or a garageful of inventory.” It is inappropriate to twist a statement contrasting Melaleuca with MLM companies into definitive proof that Melaleuca is an MLM. Also, as all editors agreed on this talk page MONTHS AGO, the term “pyramid selling” is derogatory, non-neutral, and not appropriate.

:Third, you erroneously infer that because Melaleuca belongs to the Direct Selling Association that it must be an MLM. To the contrary, the DSA represents numerous types of direct selling companies, only some of which are MLMs, such as single-level, party-plan, and consumer direct companies. In fact, the DSA’s website explains how Melaleuca’s business model fits into the direct selling industry: “Melaleuca, Inc., a consumer direct marketing company, is one of the fastest-growing home-based businesses in North America. Founded in 1985 and headquartered in Idaho Falls, Idaho, Melaleuca manufactures nutritional, nutracuetical, personal care, skin care, pharmaceutical and home care products. Melaleuca distributes these superior-quality, natural products direct to the consumer through a full-service catalog shopping system. '''Melaleuca operates on a single-level (company to customer) distribution model as opposed to a multi-level marketing model.'''”

:. Membership in the DSA does not mean that Melaleuca is an MLM, and the DSA has specifically pointed out that Melaleucas is not multi-level.

:Fourth, although you claim to have numerous FTC sources for the fact that Melaleuca is an MLM, you do not cite to a single one. As already discussed on this talk page MONTHS AGO, Melaleuca does not fall within the definition espoused by the FTC in its own rule-making documents. I can only assume that you do not have sources (or that you are making more inaccurate inference from otherwise neutral sources).

:Fifth, the articles you believe are “neutral” describe VanderSloot as a “Get-Rich-Quick-Profiteer” and a “Right-Wing Billionaire.” The Mother Jones article is obviously a non-neutral source based on its title alone: “Pyramid-Like Company Ponies Up $1 Million for Mitt Romney.” You cannot seriously believe that these sources are portraying Mr. VanderSloot in an objective and accurate manner.

:Finally, on the BLP page you infer that simply because you’ve found politically motivated sources that slander Melaleuca by calling it an MLM (without any analysis) that this is the only way to accurately describe the company. The following 20 articles describe Melaleuca with the same (or similar) language that the Misplaced Pages page has used for the past MONTHS:

:

:

:
:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:The language utilized here is consistent with USA Today, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and numerous local Idaho sources. There is no neutral reason to insert the inflammatory, derogatory, and inaccurate term MLM. --] (]) 21:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

::Interesting. I'm compelled to remind you of what you said previously when you were arguing against inclusion of the term MLM:

:::''"The Forbes article you mention is clearly an article about Frank VanderSloot, not an article on Melaleuca's business model. There is no evidence that the author of the Forbes article spent any time at all researching Melaleuca's business model."''

::And yet what is it that you just quoted above? Sources that are not about the business model but rather about Vandersloot, and none of them show any evidence that the author "spent any time at all researching Melaleuca's business model". It seems that your hypocrisy filter is set on zero. ] (]) 15:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
'''"Rhode Island Red, the issues you have raised were already addressed multiple times MONTHS AGO by numerous editors. You have made no effort to address any of the issues that have been debated, other than to cite two inflammatory and obviously biased and non-neutral sources."'''
:First of all, it's not me that's raising issues. I have inserted text and supporting sources in the article and it's you that seems to have the issues. I reviewed the Talk page thread on this so-called "issue" and it consisted mostly of weak and poorly supported arguments from 3 ] (looking an awful lot like ]) who was insisting that Melaleuca is not an MLM and hectoring another veteran editor that was raising rock solid counterarguments and providing reliable sources that were being arbitrarily dismissed, and then the discussion simply stalled out. One of those SPAs was you. There is nothing there that I feel compelled to address, other than perhaps the user conduct issues and the apparent attempt to use sock puppets/SPAs to influence a content debate and whitewash the article.

:The goal of the talk page is to speak factually and present solid evidence. Merely because you adamantly claim that these ] are “inflammatory and obviously biased and non-neutral” doesn’t make it so. Last time I checked, ] and ] were considered well-respected sources for investigative journalism.

'''"First, the term MLM is not innocuous. Mr. VanderSloot has spent the past 26 years explaining how MLM companies hurt people’s lives while building a company that rejects MLM practices. Your effort to describe the company he founded using a term he has repeatedly lambasted is simply not NPOV."'''
:The term ] itself is innocuous; it simply describes a general type of business model. Your argument is akin to saying we shouldn’t use the term “credit default swaps” to describe a company that sells credit default swaps simply because the term may evoke bad memories for some people. Vandersloot can lambaste all he wants but that doesn’t change the fact Melaleuca has been characterized as an MLM by numerous reliable sources.

'''“Second, the Forbes article cited here does not provide a reliable basis to declare that Melaleuca is an MLM.”'''
:It doesn’t need to. It refers to the company as a “pyramid selling” company, which is a synonym for MLM. What makes you think you can arbitrarily set your own bar for what an investigative report/news article has to prove about its reasoning or justification for using any particular set of terms? Besides, there are 4 sources cited currently to support the inclusion of the term MLM; Forbe’s was only one of them.


== External links modified ==
'''“You ignore the fact that Mr. VanderSloot himself disputed the accuracy of the Forbes’ article, in Forbes: ”'''
:Yes, you’re right; I totally ignored it. Vanderloot doesn’t get to dismiss Forbe’s or any other source merely because he sent a gripe letter to the editor disputing their facts. Forbe’s didn’t retract a word.


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
'''“You erroneously infer that because Melaleuca belongs to the Direct Selling Association that it must be an MLM.”'''
:I did nothing of the kind. Just stick to presenting your arguments and don't try to enlighten other editors about their own underlying thought processes. I won’t bother responding in detail to all the hokum about the DSA, except to point out that it is an ]. You shoot yourself in the foot when you pin your paper-thin premise on a source as clearly non-NPOV as the DSA.


I have just modified 14 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
'''"Fourth, although you claim to have numerous FTC sources for the fact that Melaleuca is an MLM, you do not cite to a single one. As already discussed on this talk page MONTHS AGO, Melaleuca does not fall within the definition espoused by the FTC in its own rule-making documents. I can only assume that you do not have sources (or that you are making more inaccurate inference from otherwise neutral sources)."'''
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.melaleucanews.com/newmelaleucanews/2006/06/05/melaleuca-leader-enjoys-rural-roots/
:You assumed incorrectly. I’ve been waiting for you to concisely recapitulate all of your petty grievances before I get to the issue of additional sources. Now that you’ve done so, additional references have been added. I won’t get sucked into a game of chasing moving targets or engaging in a war of attrition masquerading as a debate. I’d like to keep the amount of additional time squandered on this non-issue to the bare minimum. IMO, such extraordinary efforts to fight against including the term MLM belies the non-NPOV agenda of an ]. Your flawed ] about the applicability of the FTC’s definitions of an MLM had no place in the discussion previously, nor does it now.
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130216081406/http://www.kpvi.com/content/news/local/story/Melaleuca-Surpasses-1-Billion-in-Sales-For-Year/JKkvtcCS8EW0BM4HqyCL2A.cspx to http://www.kpvi.com/content/news/local/story/Melaleuca-Surpasses-1-Billion-in-Sales-For-Year/JKkvtcCS8EW0BM4HqyCL2A.cspx
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.capitalpress.com/lvstk/JO-VanderSlootRanch-022712
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120903174116/http://www.kpvi.com/content/news/local/story/Riverbend-Ranch-to-Host-Worlds-2nd-Largest-Angus/1DLyp7SSYE2CF7CphGBTng.cspx to http://www.kpvi.com/content/news/local/story/Riverbend-Ranch-to-Host-Worlds-2nd-Largest-Angus/1DLyp7SSYE2CF7CphGBTng.cspx
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130119125159/http://www.capitalpress.com/print/JO-VanderSlootRanch-022712 to http://www.capitalpress.com/print/JO-VanderSlootRanch-022712
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129015643/http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=2166581&spid=30800 to http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=2166581&spid=30800
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130119194123/http://www.capitalpress.com/newest/JO-VanderSlootDonation-082812 to http://www.capitalpress.com/newest/JO-VanderSlootDonation-082812
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1%3FID=121849&SessionID=21bnWFiwbThGKl7
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825122221/http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/entry/behind-the-curtain-a-brief-history-of-romneys-donors/ to http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/entry/behind-the-curtain-a-brief-history-of-romneys-donors/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150614040935/http://www.kboi2.com/news/Idaho-Election-Education-Proposition-Luna-177667281.html?m=y&smobile=y to http://www.kboi2.com/news/Idaho-Election-Education-Proposition-Luna-177667281.html?m=y&smobile=y
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130415074212/http://idahoptv.org/idreports/showEditorial.cfm?StoryId=24122 to http://idahoptv.org/idreports/showEditorial.cfm?StoryId=24122
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620001540/http://idahoptv.org/idreports/showEditorial.cfm?StoryID=46584 to http://idahoptv.org/idreports/showEditorial.cfm?StoryID=46584
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080726105851/http://idahoptv.org/idreports/showEditorial.cfm?StoryID=19167 to http://idahoptv.org/idreports/showEditorial.cfm?StoryID=19167
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100607042208/http://www.ktvb.com/news/Groups-must-pay-1900-fines-for-illegal-campaigns-95564854.html to http://www.ktvb.com/news/Groups-must-pay-1900-fines-for-illegal-campaigns-95564854.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130116200451/http://www.allvoices.com/news/5904565-ads-attacking-judicial-candidate-violated-state-disclosure-law-official-says to http://www.allvoices.com/news/5904565-ads-attacking-judicial-candidate-violated-state-disclosure-law-official-says
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120807092732/http://lgbtweekly.com/2012/05/07/rachel-maddow-slams-romney-campaign-chairman-for-outing-gay-reporter/ to http://lgbtweekly.com/2012/05/07/rachel-maddow-slams-romney-campaign-chairman-for-outing-gay-reporter/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120607024642/http://www.authorpeterzuckerman.com/blog.htm?post=854939 to http://www.authorpeterzuckerman.com/blog.htm?post=854939
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.nationaljournal.com/blogs/influencealley/2012/02/will-romney-s-finance-co-chair-become-a-liability--27


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
'''“Fifth, the articles you believe are “neutral” describe VanderSloot as a “Get-Rich-Quick-Profiteer” and a “Right-Wing Billionaire.” The Mother Jones article is obviously a non-neutral source based on its title alone: “Pyramid-Like Company Ponies Up $1 Million for Mitt Romney.” You cannot seriously believe that these sources are portraying Mr. VanderSloot in an objective and accurate manner.”'''
:Why would you deign to tell me what my beliefs are on issues that I’ve never addressed before (i.e. the neutrality specifically of Rolling Stone and Mother Jones)? In fact, these are reputable journalists from reputable publications, so what POV problem is there? Your central premise is flawed -- ] doesn’t say that you can arbitrarily dismiss a source as non-neutral simply because it isn’t flattering. I also can't imagine why you would object so strenuously to the phrase "right wing billionaire". Is it the "right wing" part or the "billionaire" part? Personally, if someone challenged me to characterize Vandersloot in 3 words, I don't know if I could do much better than that. Can you (rhetorical question)?


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
'''"Finally, on the BLP page you infer that simply because you’ve found politically motivated sources that slander Melaleuca by calling it an MLM (without any analysis) that this is the only way to accurately describe the company."'''
:More ridiculous unsubstantiated statements. You have no basis for speculating about my inferences or impugning the motivation of these sources, or for suggesting that referring to Melaleuca as an MLM constitutes slander.


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 06:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
'''“The following 20 articles describe Melaleuca with the same (or similar) language that the Misplaced Pages page has used for the past MONTHS”'''
:The 20 links you pasted prove nothing about whether or not the company is an MLM. Where is the well-detailed analysis of the business model that you demanded of the Forbe’s source today? Does the hypocrisy escape you? Are you familiar with the statement “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”? It means, in this case, that if a source doesn’t include the word "MLM" it doesn’t mean that Melaleuca is not an MLM; it may simply be an error of omission. Now if you had 20 articles that specifically said that the company is NOT an MLM, then that would be a different story.


== lead ==
'''“There is no neutral reason to insert the inflammatory, derogatory, and inaccurate term MLM.”'''
:It’s a word. It is not pejorative. Lots of companies use it and they don’t freak out about it like you do. Keep things in perspective. ] (]) 00:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a plethora of sources across the spectrum that all refer to Melaleuca as an MLM. It's staggering that the sham debate about this went on as long as it did.


@Pistongrinder: "Misplaced Pages Administrator ruled in RfC to not include this in lede", please offer a link of some sort to establish this. ] (]) 06:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
'''Federal Trade Commission'''
:Sure, no problem. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_6#RFC:_Should_the_term_%22multi-level_marketing%22_(MLM)_be_used_in_the_lead_section? Misplaced Pages administrator Lord Roem ruled that the term “multi-level marketing” should not be used as a descriptor in the lead section. It's found in the Talk page’s Archive 6 section.] (]) 19:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
*“Numerous letters came from individuals having negative experiences with various MLMs like Quixtar, 4Life, Mary Kay, Arbonne, Liberty League International, Financial Freedom Society, Herbalife, Xango, Melaleuca, EcoQuest, Pre-Paid Legal, PartyLite, Shaklee, Vartec/Excel, and Vemma. 73 Fed. Reg. at 16,113 n.37.”
::Seven-year old thread with some pretty tendentious/whitewashy/partisan arguments. Also, new sources added since then. The company is clearly an MLM and the detail is significant. No reason not to add it and good reason to include it. It's a fact and it's notable. ] (]) 20:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
:::You and Nomoskedasticity were heavily involved in this RFC, which was on this exact topic. You didn’t like the result then or now but that’s not a justification for change on this issue. Without consensus, the result of the prior RFC should stand. ] (]) 22:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
::::That is not an argument as to why it shouldn't be included. Do you have some actual reason? Objection seems to defy logic and WP policy. If it's an MLM, which it is, and that's a notable fact, which it is, then why wouldn't it be included? ] (]) 23:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::For the same reasons as the WP Admin stated before to conclude a lengthy, contentious RFC process. Lord Roem summarized his decision in this way: “No consensus for inclusion.” The Admin’s decision is just as pertinent today as it once was. In addition to WP:NOCONSENSUS, he also cited WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD. Lord Roem's explanation is quite clear. ] (]) 01:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::You do understand that "Lord" is just a user name right, and the opinion expressed 7 years ago is not an inviolable commandment? You reverted the edit, so you should have a clear reason that you can articulate other than (paraphrasing) "because Lord said so 7 years ago" and "no consensus". The inclusion of MLM certainly does not violate ] nor ] so if that was presented as justification for omitting it 7 years ago, it was a poor reason. If you are standing in the way of a consensus, you cannot use "no consensus" as the reason as its circular logic. A content-based argument is required. ] (]) 15:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::::The WP Administrator reviewed arguments on this exact topic from 18 different editors (previously involved and uninvolved editors) during that RFC, including 39 comments that you personally made. The Talk page history (Archive 6) shows you dominated the conversation, responding to virtually everyone who disagreed with you. Although you made the exact arguments then that you’re making today, the Admin still ruled it didn’t belong in the lead for a variety of reasons. I don’t need to repeat his reasons since they’re clear in the ruling. Furthermore, it’s a gross characterization to claim that I’m “standing in the way of a consensus,” since several editors agreed and argued that it didn’t belong there. A consensus was reached after vigorous, contentious debate – that’s what Misplaced Pages’s RFC process is all about. What’s more, even though you clearly knew about the RFC and the Admin’s decision, you still put the term back in the lead a few days ago without even asking editors for consensus. That should not have happened. ] (]) 18:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::::I am not asking you to refer back to a 7-year old discussion. It is you who is now the lone voice standing in the way of reaching a new consensus, so it incumbent on you to provide a specific rationale. If you have no personal objections, then we have a new consensus. If you do have objections, then you need to delineate what they are. Merely saying ] or ] is not a valid justification. The company is an MLM; Vandersloot is referred to in the media as the "king" and "baron" of multi-level marketing. What possible reason can there be for not including the term that accurately describes his business? ] (]) 20:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::No, you do not get to unilaterally set terms for this discussion. Why did you put the MLM term back in the lead before asking other editors for consensus even though a RFC decision had been made? Not cool. It doesn’t matter that it’s 7 years old if the topic is EXACTLY the same. If the argument is still the same, then the result should still be the same. Why do you claim the Admin’s rationale is not a valid justification even though he studied all sides of the issue? Like I said before, you didn’t like the result then or now but that’s not a justification for change on this issue.


:::::::::Here’s a portion of the Admin's ruling: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_6#Editing_comments: As WP:BLP requires that we take a conservative approach in the tone of article content, and with a fair concern being raised about both the importance and necessity of this descriptor (i.e. discussion about whether it's necessary or is an attack), I believe using the term in the lead would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD. The significant criticism of the corporation that is in reliable secondary sources may be in the article proper, but its inclusion in the lede would give undue focus to something that the sources only discuss tangentially.
'''Journalists/News Articles'''
*DailyFinance (reporter Eamon Murphy): “For Melaleuca is essentially a pyramid scheme -- or, more politely, a "multilevel marketing firm," like Amway or Herbalife (HLF) -- in which so-called independent marketing executives make money by peddling the company's dietary supplements and cleaning products, as well as recruiting more salespeople (the newer recruits being on the lower levels of the pyramid).”
*] (correspondent Jeff Ernsthausen): “This spring, Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones detailed Mitt Romney’s multilevel-marketing connections, which included more than $3 million in contributions to a Romney super PAC by executives at Nu Skin Enterprises and Melaleuca.”
*] (Washington Bureau correspondent Stephanie Mencimer): “And Romney's current finance chair, Frank VanderSloot, is the CEO of Idaho-based Melaleuca, a multilevel-marketing company that sells green cleaning products and nutritional supplements.”
:“VanderSloot's company also has a controversial background. Like Amway, Herbalife, and other so-called multilevel marketing firms, its business model relies on recruiting distributors, who in turn must recruit more distributors, to sell its products.”
*] (political reporter Tim Dickinson): “The Pyramid Schemer: Frank VanderSloot – Position: CEO of Melaleuca Inc., a "multilevel marketing" firm based in Idaho that sells off-brand cleaning products and nutritional supplements.”
*] (award winning journalist Laura Onstot): “Multilevel marketing—the pyramid-like (but only like!) business model made famous by Amway and Mary Kay—has, inevitably, gone green. Melaleuca, a household-products company based in Idaho (named for the plant from which tea tree oil is derived) is actively recruiting in the Puget Sound area. Brenda Malpedo of Tacoma, a Melaleuca ‘marketing executive,’ placed the Craigslist ad in order to recruit other salespeople to join.”
*]: “Melaleuca is a pyramid selling organization, built along the lines of Herbalife and Amway. Vendors get commissions on the products they sell and also on products sold by vendors they recruit..” (NB: “pyramid selling” is a synonym for ])
*] (staff reporter Alexa Hyland): “They decided to leave the company and join a competing multilevel marketing company, Melaleuca”
*Susan Brown (] correspondent): “Melaleuca Inc. sells vitamins, personal hygiene products, household cleaners and other consumables through multilevel marketing. President Frank VanderSloot said Melaleuca pays a 7 percent commission to seven levels of distributors.
*Susan Brown (in ]: via NYT Regional Newspapers wire)“…Frank Vandersloot, president of Idaho Falls, Idaho-based Melaleuca Inc, a multilevel distributor of vitamins, personal hygiene products, household cleaners, and other goods.”


:::::::::I agree with the Misplaced Pages Administrator over you. I am not alone. The record shows that many other editors took positions to not insert the term into the lead. ] (]) 04:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
'''MLM Experts'''
::::::::::Like I said, I'm interested in your editorial rationale for removing the term recently; not what was said in a discussion from 7 years ago, although upon reviewing it, there was a solid consensus recognizing that the company is an MLM and it was apparent that 80% of uninvolved editors favored inclusion of the term. The admin in that context merely serves as a vote counter who summarizes the consensus, and in this case the admin's summary seemed off base, especially given that there were some highly partisan editors involved in the discussion. That happens, and consensus can change over time, especially as new sources are published; and 7-year old admin opinions are not immutable by any stretch. Now 7 years later you are the lone opponent. Nonetheless, you have now elaborated that you think the term should not be included because ]. Could you kindly elaborate in what way you think it is undue because I see no basis for that argument? ] (]) 15:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
*]: “Pyramid Scheme Alert compiled an analysis of the actual average incomes of a sample of 10,000 sales representatives for Nuskin, Nikken, Melaleuca, Reliv, Arbonne, Free Life International and Cyberwize.com. These seven multi-level marketing companies, six of which are large, well-known members of the Direct Selling Association (DSA) and the seventh a newer and fast-growing MLM, are regarded in the multi-level marketing business as representative examples of that industry. They are representative in product type, pay plan, business structure, and marketing claims of the majority of multi-level marketing companies. The companies were selected based on the data available but also on the representative nature of these companies.” (see also
{{od}}Pistongrinder might want to have a look at ]. ] (]) 21:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
*Jon M Taylor: Includes Melaleuca on list of MLM companies.
: A few thoughts on recent comments and following the right process in making this kind of potentially contentious change. First, I believe the Administrator’s role was significantly more than a “vote counter who summarizes the consensus.” It appears there had been strong arguments on both sides for years over the MLM issue, and because the editors on the page could not gain consensus, it was brought to a dispute resolution RFC for fresh eyes and uninvolved editors. The Admin had a role larger than “vote counter,” which any idiot could do. Admins have built up a trust factor and their level of experience and insight is helpful. You led the charge on one side, being the most vocal proponent for including it in the lead. You made 39 comments – far more than anybody else – ensuring that your voice was amply heard. Once the ruling was issued, it appears that numerous editors followed that direction and the page achieved consensus for 7 years.
*]: Includes Melaleuca on list of MLM companies
:Second, I understand ] - consensus can change. It was good to review it again. The Admin pointed out that ruling could change if new facts emerge and a new consensus was later obtained by editors to determine if MLM belongs in the lead. But I have not seen any new facts convincing me that adding the term MLM, which the Administrator thought was being used as an attack & most likely had a negative connotation, now meets the standard of being sufficiently “important and necessary” for this particular BLP.
:Third, the Admin argued that it created ] because “its inclusion in the lede would give undue focus to something that the sources only discuss tangentially.” Even more important, he reasoned: “However, there is no consensus on whether the use of the term, in and of itself, carries a negative connotation. That uncertainty, intersecting with the nature of this article as a BLP, requires that the term be excluded. Per ], ‘or contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.’ As there is no necessity in including this term, I believe there is no reason to depart from that practice in removing the disputed wording.”
:In summary, the Administrator’s several points of Misplaced Pages policy seems reasonable and appropriate to me. In your last post, you said “in this case the admin's summary seemed off base,” but I don’t agree. I thought his summary was thoughtful and conservative. That direction still makes sense to me today on the subject of a BLP. For those reasons, I recommend that we keep it out of the BLP’s lead. ] (]) 00:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
::Again, I didn't ask for a recap of the conversation from 7 years ago, in which all but one uninvolved editor thought MLM belonged in the lead. I wanted you to clarify what your reason was for reverting, and it appears that you are saying, in a roundabout way, that you think it's ]. Is that in fact the case? If so, it's probably time for to take this up again in some form of dispute resolution. Just want to know exactly where you stand before the process is initiated. Anything else to add? ] (]) 15:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::There isn’t any federal law that defines “MLM”. Without a clear definition, the term doesn’t help to explain the “most important content” as required by ]. ] (]) • 02:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::::::::::Completely irrelevant. We simply go by the fact that multiple ] refer to it as an MLM; we don't second guess by inventing an arbitrary standard about what may or may not constitute a "legal" definition of MLM. More importantly, the previous consensus was that it is in an MLM -- that is no longer in dispute and MLM has long been included in the body text describing Melaleuca. The resistance to including MLM in the lead now is from one editor who seems to think that it's an issue of ], which I vehemently disagree with. The company is an MLM; MLM is an important defining characteristic; and that MLM company is what VS is arguably most famous for -- he's even referred to in the press as the king of MLM and the baron of MLM. It strikes me as profoundly illogical, and whitewashing, to not include it in the lead. ] (]) 15:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Why is this term so important when it doesn’t even have a legally agreed-upon definition? It doesn’t belong in the lede of the BLP. Indeed, to include that legally disputed term in the lede violates the instruction that a lede section should be written “with a neutral point of view.” And because there is no agreed-upon legal definition of the term, including it in the lede necessarily brings in “ontentious material . . . that is . . . poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable” and it “should be removed immediately.” Thus, contrary to your statement, the fact that there is no legally agreed-upon definition is in no way “completely irrelevant”—just the opposite: it directly supports the position that the term should be excluded from the lede. ] (]) 22:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
::: Interesting that you used the term whitewashing because I find that your summary of the situation does just that. I reviewed the RFC and nine editors (previously involved and uninvolved) supported keeping it out of the lead. You’re now trying to make it appear that virtually nobody was in support of keeping it out of the lead, which is simply not true. You also inaccurately wrote the Administrator “merely serves as a vote counter who summarizes the consensus.” C’mon. Nobody believes that ridiculous statement. And lastly, it’s little wonder that you’re not interested in a “recap of the conversation 7 years ago,” since the Admin's gave reasons for the decision, ruled against your opinions, and interpreted WP policy completely different than you.
:::Another key point: After the RFC closed and discord followed, Lord Roem wrote on page 6 of the Talk Page Archive (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_6) , “So there is no confusion, I closed the RfC as "No Consensus for Inclusion". '''Without consensus to use the term, policy mandates that it be excluded'''. Please stop edit warring this change. Anything else (besides the term MLM) should be discussed here if a change is contested.”
:::In another statement, he wrote: “The RfC asked whether the term "multi-level marketing" should be used. '''Because there was no consensus, that term must be excluded'''. My explanation for that was in the close above. Additionally, my closure of the RfC is an administrative action and does not make me involved. Nor does a suggestion that any disputed changes besides the use of the MLM term should be discussed here on the talk page. Now, you are free to continue discussing the addition of the term to generate a new consensus, nothing about that RfC bars that. '''But until that time, you may not add in the contested term.'''”
:::When pushed yet again, the Admin wrote, “I'm not getting drawn in to any discussion of the merits of the issue because I have no opinion about the full merits of the issue. '''I will consider it disruptive to continue to add in a term which may violate our BLP policy after I have already warned you against doing just that.'''
:::For the record, who were the two editors arguing the hardest in the RFC and then who vehemently disagreed with the Admin? It just happens to be the two editors who are here doing it again, falsely claiming a consensus. No wonder you want to disregard the previous RFC, despite the Admin’s ruling that the “may violate our BLP policy.” This Misplaced Pages Administrator took strong positions on this exact topic, and he literally warned you against it and wrote "you may not add in the contested term." ] (]) 04:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
::::Again, not interested in the recap (which ignored that a super-majority of uninvolved editors supported inclusion) of the discussion from 7 years ago. Only interested in the current discussion about your precise policy position on the issue of MLM in the lead, which seems to be ]. I don't agree but just want clarity before we open this up to a broader audience to see if we can reach a consensus. ] (]) 15:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::Based on RfC verdict, there probably shouldn't be a descriptor for the company in the lede at all. That obviously is taken care of in a later section. But if there were to be descriptor for the company in the lede, it would be appropriate to describe it in the way that the Associated Press does. The AP is a neutral source of factual, accurate reporting. 1. "VanderSloot is the founder of the wellness shopping club Melaleuca":https://apnews.com/61b493a32a79bcce29afdfd6fd33c4ad 2. “Billionaire Frank VanderSloot, founder of Idaho Falls-based wellness shopping club Melaleuca, https://apnews.com/1be9cfee5e26ff7c4f301ecb5551e0a7 3. VanderSloot, founder and chief executive of the health care products company Melaleuca, https://apnews.com/740cad4f38334593b502bc9927af8a8f/Idaho-billionaire-VanderSloot-staying-out-of-governor's-race. None of these AP reporters use "multilevel marketing" to describe Melaleuca. Although some editors here claim that MLM is the most distinguishing element of vandersloot and his company, that's not how the Associated Press writes it. Since we're trying to create an unbiased POV on a BLP, we should look at these examples.] (]) 20:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::The RfC saw no significant opposition regarding the company being an MLM. That point is well established and was widely agreed upon -- the only issue was whether or not in belonged in the lead. APs wording is an isolated non-representative example. It is not widely referred to as a "wellness shopping club" nor does that term have any tangible encyclopedic meaning, so that would not be a step in the right direction IMO. It certainly has nothing to do with "health care" -- that's quite absurd. ] (]) 14:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::::My point wasn’t to push an alternate term for the lede, but rather show that journalists at top news sites like the Associated Press refer to it in ways that usually don't include the term MLM. In addition to examples from the Associated Press, here’s a recent USA Today reference - “billionaire Frank Vandersloot, founder of wellness shopping club Melaleuca” (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/50-states/2020/04/26/businesses-reopen-parked-planes-coughing-criminals-hasbro-masks-news-around-states/111626130/) Another example is in today’s Idaho Statesman. It says “Frank VanderSloot, CEO of Melaleuca Inc., an Idaho Falls wellness-products maker”. Contrary to your previous statement, singling-out the "MLM" term as the most defining characteristic is not accurate as the Associated Press, USA Today and Idaho Statesman stories show. Since it’s not how these top news sites call it, it’s unneeded for the lede section.] (]) 05:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::::In the last RfC, the fact that the company is an MLM was recognized by broad consensus. The issue ultimately boiled down to whether or not including the term in the lead was ], not whether or not the company is an MLM, and while 4 out of uninvolved editors supported inclusion in the lead, the admin, for reasons that are still murky, claimed that there was insufficient consensus for inclusion in the lead. It’s also clear that while the company is an MLM, Vandersloot apparently prefers that it not be referred to as such because of (well-deserved) negative public perceptions about MLM, and the press sometimes obliges by using other nebulous terms, or even ridiculous non-encyclopedic promotional language (like “wellness shopping club” in your example), but that doesn’t change the facts/reality nor the conclusions of the last RfC. I think the only way we’ll get consensus on this matter is through another RfC and input from uninvolved editors. ] (]) 14:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::Wow! A far-fetched claim to say Vandersloot has the power to “oblige” journalists from top news sites like the Associated Press and USA Today to write a certain way about Melaleuca. Where’s the proof for that conspiracy theory?] (]) 03:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::@Rhode Island Red – Your last post concedes my point that because “MLM” lacks a legally agreed-upon meaning, it should not be in the lead. Specifically, your post criticizes some reporters (including reporters from the Associated Press(!)) for using the term “wellness shopping club” because, to use your phrase, that term is “non-encyclopedic.” If a “non-encyclopedic” term should not be used to describe Melaleuca, a term with no legally agreed-upon meaning should likewise not be used to describe the company—especially in the lead of a Misplaced Pages article about a living person. Your post also editorializes about MLMs (“(well-deserved) negative public perceptions”), confirming that the term, which, again lacks any kind of legally agreed-upon meaning (or any non-legal agreed-upon meaning, for that matter), is not a neutral one and is thus, inappropriate for the lead. But you are right on one point: nothing in the current debate changes the facts/reality or conclusions of the last RfC. That reasoned decision came out against your position, and you’ve offered no basis—apart from calling the admin’s explanation “murky”—why another RfC is warranted at this point. ] (]) 03:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::I conceded nothing of the kind and I find this argument about legal definitions perplexing to the extreme. It is an arbitrary construct and has no basis in WP policy (or logic, I would argue). Aside from that, the fact that Melaleuca was overwhelmingly recognized as an MLM in the RfC bypasses the legal argument completely – i.e., definition of MLM notwithstanding, the WP editorial community by consensus agreed that it is an MLM.
::::::::::The admins reasoning was murky because it went against the conclusions of the 4 out of 5 uninvolved editors (a super-majority) who supported inclusion in the lead, and getting the input of uninvolved editors is arguably the most important goal of an RfC. The fact that specious arguments, expressed vociferously, are being used here now indicates precisely why another RfC may be needed, and no permission is needed to launch one. RfC should be warmly embraced, as the more editors involved, the better the article, typically at least. ] (]) 15:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


It seems that there are potential user conduct issues here that are impeding the editorial process on this article. We now have 3 user different accounts fighting vehemently against inclusion of MLM in the lead, but it appears that all are novice editors and all are ] accounts reactivated in the past couple of weeks.
'''Organizations'''
*Human Rights Campaign: “Subsidiaries of VanderSloot's multi-level marketing company Melaleuca, of which he is CEO, have poured a combined $1 million into Restore Our Future, the main super PAC associated with Romney.”


*: Sleeper account reactivated in mid-June/2020 after being dormant for more than 2 years (144 total edits since registering 11/4/2015)
'''Consumer Organizations'''
*: Sleeper account reactivated in mid-June/2020 after being dormant for more than 1 year (474 total edits since registering 8/28/2014)
*BBB: (lists Melaleuca as multilevel marketing company)
*: Sleeper account reactivated in mid-June/2020 after being dormant for 6 months (1,206 total edits since registering 8/8/2014)


Oddly, all of these users seems to have an acquaintance with WP policies and this article’s history that goes well beyond what one would expect from greenhorn editors. Just sounding the warning that if there is any obstruction from these users going forward, the next step will be a user conduct RfC. I don’t know if the issues we’re having here are due to the inexperience of these editors with WP P&Ps or if it goes beyond that, but it’s clear that there’s no point going through the motions of consensus building until this issue is resolved. Since this is a user conduct issue rather than a editorial issue, there is no point in engaging in further discussion about it on this talk page, but it is important that other editors be made aware of the background details and the implications. ] (]) 21:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
'''Former Melaleuca Executives'''
*SEC Filing: “From 1991 to 1998, he worked for Melaleuca Inc., a network marketing company, during which time he became Director of International Operations"(NB: "network marketing" is a synonym for MLM -- see ]).
*Spencer Reese (former in-house counsel for Melaleuca): “Spencer Reese is a partner in the law firm of Grimes & Reese. He is a graduate of the Washington University School of Law and is a member of the Idaho, Missouri and Colorado bars. He was formerly in-house counsel for Melaleuca, Inc., a multilevel marketing company with sales in excess of $260 million.”


:If I didn't know any better, it would be possible to read your statement as some sort of compliment because apparently it's unusual for a "greenhorn editor" like me to have an understanding of WP policies. Here's my secret to figuring it out so well: I know how to read and google. And given the global crisis, I have a little time on my hands. Maybe you do too?!] (]) 03:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
'''Melaleuca’s Statements in Court Affidavits'''
* “Melaleuca argues that OrGano seeks this information solely to support its unclean hands defense by attempting to establish that Melalueca engaged in the same “bad acts” against other competing multi-level marketing companies.”
* “Accordingly, Melalueca’s response period shall be reduced, and its response must include those documents which describe Melaleuca’s recruiting of new marketing executives from competing multi-level marketing companies within the last six (6) years.”
*“When Marketing Executives join Melaleuca, they sign what is called an Independent Marketing Executive Agreement with Melaleuca. The Bartholomews were Marketing Executives at Melaleuca until recently, when they left Melaleuca and joined another multi-level marketing company called Independent Energy Alliance (“IEA”).”


::@RhodeIslandRed - Your conspiracy theories hardly deserve my time or response. And I know how argumentative you can be: we’ve tangled on this page over the years. But to correct the record, I want to make it clear that you’re the one that recently jumpstarted this page after years of minor activity to re-start the same debate you lost before.
'''Other Sources in Court Cases'''
*“Melaleuca is a consumer direct-marketing company, and commonly known and referred to as a multi-level marketing company. It manufactures skin care and other health products and markets these products through a complex network of independent contractors referred to as Independent Marketing Executives (“IME”). Each IME has the potential to create a multi-level customer base over which it has oversight. Each IME also receives a regular commission payment reflecting a certain percentage of the income derived from the sales made by other IME’s in his or her downline.”


::It is beyond curious to me that you're the most dominant editor of this page (39% authorship), yet you’re trying to call me out for making a couple of recent edits—edits that were only intended to preserve the status quo and follow the prior RfC process. You've made 543 edits to the page, while I've made 4.
== Why Is There Still a POV Tag on LGBT Section? ==


::It seems that your M.O. is to attempt to intimidate, criticize, and dismiss anybody who has a difference of opinion with you. You did that to me years ago when I originally founded this page, and you’re trying to do it again. Anybody who looks at this situation will see your actions appear very close to page ownership ]. ] (]) 17:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why there is still a POV tag on the ? ] (]) 05:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
:Mainly because of editors who keep inserting material from their own POV therein, and into the BLP in general. Cheers. ] (]) 11:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
::Are you saying that the tag is there preemptively to discourage people from "inserting material from their own POV therein" (which would be improper use of the tag) or are you saying that there is currently non-NPOV text in the section, and if you are, what is the text that's being questioned? Be specific please. ] (]) 14:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Since there seems to be no reason whatsoever to have kept the tag in all this time, and since you chose to ignore my question about the tag, it has now been removed. ] (]) 17:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


:::No one advanced a conspiracy theory and your response (accusation of ]) is bizarre to say the least, given that it was I who suggested getting more experienced editors involved to resolve the dispute in an RfC. However, the consensus building process is only effective when the people involved have enough experience to understand WP policies and keep their biases in check. That doesn’t seem to be the case here. The counterarguments advanced so far (e.g., MLM doesn’t have a legal definition, etc.) are tendentious to say the least. No need to get up in arms about the suggestion to invite a broader group of experienced editors to weigh in; that’s how WP is supposed to function.
== Reverting to stable version ==
:::The current dispute boils down to 2 very simple points: (1) it is established that the company is an MLM according to multiple ] and as recognized by a broad consensus of editors, and this detail has been included in the body text of the article for roughly 7 years; (2) as such, why would it be undue to include that simple and notable descriptor in the lead, the same way that is in articles on every other MLM? All the complaining and gnashing of teeth over this is completely unnecessary and a distraction since it’s a very simple editorial question at hand. No need for histrionics, just well thought out feedback from unbiased editors who understand WP P&Ps. ] (]) 15:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


::::It is fascinating to watch how quickly you change tactics. After you get shutdown on the substance of the debate, you resort to ad hominem attacks, calling people “sleeper accounts.” Just as quickly, when those you call “sleeper accounts” point out how transparently biased you are on this subject (543 edits to 4!), you turn again to your tired arguments on the merits of this issue. It gives one whiplash. How can you seriously accuse others of “gnashing of teeth” and “histrionics” when your editing and talk history reveals a near obsession on the person and company? You don’t get to own this page and accuse others of improprieties when they push back on you.] (]) 03:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Both my editor friends above make some good points , but really there is no argument over this matter anywhere except on this page, as I noted above, so until it develops that there really IS some controversy in the outside world, I think it best just to sidestep the matter, which is a concern, it seems, nowhere else but here. So I am reverting back to what has been called (with some justification) the "stable" version. I hope you understand this is not a personal matter, even though I have taken an interest in this subject and will post some more suggested changes when I have them ready — just a few more sources to check. Thanks very much to all concerned. Yours, ] (]) 00:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::Yet another comment that avoids confronting the simple fundamental editorial question posed above. Yes histrionics indeed; and not constructive. The accounts were referred to as sleepers because that is what they are by WP definition, and feigned indignation doesn't change that fact. Again, just focus on the editorial issue please. Want to get all the sleepers positions on record before this moves to RfC. ] (])
*'''"really there is no argument over this matter anywhere except on this page, as I noted above, so until it develops that there really IS some controversy in the outside world, I think it best just to sidestep the matter, which is a concern, it seems, nowhere else but here."'''
::Your comment is so cryptic and lacking in substance that I don't even know what it's supposed to mean. The designation of Melaleuca as an MLM is not a controversy anywhere except in the minds of a few SPA/socks and partisan editors who are POV pushing. You had no basis for deleting MLM from from the article, and certainly not for removing the other uncontested material. {{unsigned|Rhode Island Red}}
:::I think RIR's case is pretty overwhelming. The sources provided by Roadpiece do not appear to ''dispute'' the MLM characterisation -- they fail to use the term. (I did not check them all -- if I'm wrong, please identify which ones do so.) So we have a large number of good sources that characterise the company as a MLM organisation and nothing much to indicate that those sources are wrong. ] (]) 06:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
::::VanderSloot has gone to to distance himself from the MLM model, while simultaneously describing his company as exactly that. The underlying definition of the term multilevel marketing is not altered by vaguely expressed BLP policy concerns. Even the indicates dozens of articles (and hundreds of blogs and forums and such) indicating that there is a large and active controversy on the MLM status of Melaleuca. It appears that people who sell for Melaleuca are on one side, and everybody else is on the other. The notion that there is no argument on this except on Misplaced Pages is ridiculous.] (]) 08:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::Despite the overwhelming evidence I presented above, Collect came along today and just decided to delete "MLM" from the article anyway without any further explanation on the talk page. There's a very disturbing pattern of partisanship and ] on this article, and Collect's latest actions are a stellar example. This doesn't come across well, particularly since several reliable sources have described Vandersloot as been being overly aggressive in his attempts to stifle criticism. He's gone after several journalists and bloggers several times, and when he did, it made national news. It's a sensitive issue, and the optics of a few editors here trying to game the system could generate adverse PR for Vandersloot, so it is completely unacceptable. It could be perceived that they are acting on behalf of Vandersloot, regardless of whether or not they truly are. If these shenanigans continue (such as the earlier vote stacking using SPA/sock puppets and Collect's latest edit), I won't be pussyfooting around and wasting time with ] or ]; it;s a serious enough matter that I will be compelled to take this straight to ] and request that the offending editors be permanently blocked. ] (]) 14:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:49, 25 February 2024

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
WikiProject iconBusiness Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMarketing & Advertising Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Idaho Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Idaho (assessed as Low-importance).


Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.


External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Frank L. VanderSloot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

lead

@Pistongrinder: "Misplaced Pages Administrator ruled in RfC to not include this in lede", please offer a link of some sort to establish this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_6#RFC:_Should_the_term_%22multi-level_marketing%22_(MLM)_be_used_in_the_lead_section? Misplaced Pages administrator Lord Roem ruled that the term “multi-level marketing” should not be used as a descriptor in the lead section. It's found in the Talk page’s Archive 6 section.Pistongrinder (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Seven-year old thread with some pretty tendentious/whitewashy/partisan arguments. Also, new sources added since then. The company is clearly an MLM and the detail is significant. No reason not to add it and good reason to include it. It's a fact and it's notable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
You and Nomoskedasticity were heavily involved in this RFC, which was on this exact topic. You didn’t like the result then or now but that’s not a justification for change on this issue. Without consensus, the result of the prior RFC should stand. Pistongrinder (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
That is not an argument as to why it shouldn't be included. Do you have some actual reason? Objection seems to defy logic and WP policy. If it's an MLM, which it is, and that's a notable fact, which it is, then why wouldn't it be included? Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
For the same reasons as the WP Admin stated before to conclude a lengthy, contentious RFC process. Lord Roem summarized his decision in this way: “No consensus for inclusion.” The Admin’s decision is just as pertinent today as it once was. In addition to WP:NOCONSENSUS, he also cited WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD. Lord Roem's explanation is quite clear. Pistongrinder (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
You do understand that "Lord" is just a user name right, and the opinion expressed 7 years ago is not an inviolable commandment? You reverted the edit, so you should have a clear reason that you can articulate other than (paraphrasing) "because Lord said so 7 years ago" and "no consensus". The inclusion of MLM certainly does not violate WP:LEAD nor WP:UNDUE so if that was presented as justification for omitting it 7 years ago, it was a poor reason. If you are standing in the way of a consensus, you cannot use "no consensus" as the reason as its circular logic. A content-based argument is required. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The WP Administrator reviewed arguments on this exact topic from 18 different editors (previously involved and uninvolved editors) during that RFC, including 39 comments that you personally made. The Talk page history (Archive 6) shows you dominated the conversation, responding to virtually everyone who disagreed with you. Although you made the exact arguments then that you’re making today, the Admin still ruled it didn’t belong in the lead for a variety of reasons. I don’t need to repeat his reasons since they’re clear in the ruling. Furthermore, it’s a gross characterization to claim that I’m “standing in the way of a consensus,” since several editors agreed and argued that it didn’t belong there. A consensus was reached after vigorous, contentious debate – that’s what Misplaced Pages’s RFC process is all about. What’s more, even though you clearly knew about the RFC and the Admin’s decision, you still put the term back in the lead a few days ago without even asking editors for consensus. That should not have happened. Pistongrinder (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not asking you to refer back to a 7-year old discussion. It is you who is now the lone voice standing in the way of reaching a new consensus, so it incumbent on you to provide a specific rationale. If you have no personal objections, then we have a new consensus. If you do have objections, then you need to delineate what they are. Merely saying WP:LEAD or WP:UNDUE is not a valid justification. The company is an MLM; Vandersloot is referred to in the media as the "king" and "baron" of multi-level marketing. What possible reason can there be for not including the term that accurately describes his business? Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
No, you do not get to unilaterally set terms for this discussion. Why did you put the MLM term back in the lead before asking other editors for consensus even though a RFC decision had been made? Not cool. It doesn’t matter that it’s 7 years old if the topic is EXACTLY the same. If the argument is still the same, then the result should still be the same. Why do you claim the Admin’s rationale is not a valid justification even though he studied all sides of the issue? Like I said before, you didn’t like the result then or now but that’s not a justification for change on this issue.
Here’s a portion of the Admin's ruling: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_6#Editing_comments: As WP:BLP requires that we take a conservative approach in the tone of article content, and with a fair concern being raised about both the importance and necessity of this descriptor (i.e. discussion about whether it's necessary or is an attack), I believe using the term in the lead would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD. The significant criticism of the corporation that is in reliable secondary sources may be in the article proper, but its inclusion in the lede would give undue focus to something that the sources only discuss tangentially.
I agree with the Misplaced Pages Administrator over you. I am not alone. The record shows that many other editors took positions to not insert the term into the lead. Pistongrinder (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm interested in your editorial rationale for removing the term recently; not what was said in a discussion from 7 years ago, although upon reviewing it, there was a solid consensus recognizing that the company is an MLM and it was apparent that 80% of uninvolved editors favored inclusion of the term. The admin in that context merely serves as a vote counter who summarizes the consensus, and in this case the admin's summary seemed off base, especially given that there were some highly partisan editors involved in the discussion. That happens, and consensus can change over time, especially as new sources are published; and 7-year old admin opinions are not immutable by any stretch. Now 7 years later you are the lone opponent. Nonetheless, you have now elaborated that you think the term should not be included because WP:UNDUE. Could you kindly elaborate in what way you think it is undue because I see no basis for that argument? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Pistongrinder might want to have a look at WP:CCC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

A few thoughts on recent comments and following the right process in making this kind of potentially contentious change. First, I believe the Administrator’s role was significantly more than a “vote counter who summarizes the consensus.” It appears there had been strong arguments on both sides for years over the MLM issue, and because the editors on the page could not gain consensus, it was brought to a dispute resolution RFC for fresh eyes and uninvolved editors. The Admin had a role larger than “vote counter,” which any idiot could do. Admins have built up a trust factor and their level of experience and insight is helpful. You led the charge on one side, being the most vocal proponent for including it in the lead. You made 39 comments – far more than anybody else – ensuring that your voice was amply heard. Once the ruling was issued, it appears that numerous editors followed that direction and the page achieved consensus for 7 years.
Second, I understand WP:CCC - consensus can change. It was good to review it again. The Admin pointed out that ruling could change if new facts emerge and a new consensus was later obtained by editors to determine if MLM belongs in the lead. But I have not seen any new facts convincing me that adding the term MLM, which the Administrator thought was being used as an attack & most likely had a negative connotation, now meets the standard of being sufficiently “important and necessary” for this particular BLP.
Third, the Admin argued that it created WP: UNDUE because “its inclusion in the lede would give undue focus to something that the sources only discuss tangentially.” Even more important, he reasoned: “However, there is no consensus on whether the use of the term, in and of itself, carries a negative connotation. That uncertainty, intersecting with the nature of this article as a BLP, requires that the term be excluded. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, ‘or contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.’ As there is no necessity in including this term, I believe there is no reason to depart from that practice in removing the disputed wording.”
In summary, the Administrator’s several points of Misplaced Pages policy seems reasonable and appropriate to me. In your last post, you said “in this case the admin's summary seemed off base,” but I don’t agree. I thought his summary was thoughtful and conservative. That direction still makes sense to me today on the subject of a BLP. For those reasons, I recommend that we keep it out of the BLP’s lead. Pistongrinder (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Again, I didn't ask for a recap of the conversation from 7 years ago, in which all but one uninvolved editor thought MLM belonged in the lead. I wanted you to clarify what your reason was for reverting, and it appears that you are saying, in a roundabout way, that you think it's WP:UNDUE. Is that in fact the case? If so, it's probably time for to take this up again in some form of dispute resolution. Just want to know exactly where you stand before the process is initiated. Anything else to add? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
There isn’t any federal law that defines “MLM”. Without a clear definition, the term doesn’t help to explain the “most important content” as required by WP:LEDE. Jurisdicta (talk) • 02:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Completely irrelevant. We simply go by the fact that multiple WP:RS refer to it as an MLM; we don't second guess by inventing an arbitrary standard about what may or may not constitute a "legal" definition of MLM. More importantly, the previous consensus was that it is in an MLM -- that is no longer in dispute and MLM has long been included in the body text describing Melaleuca. The resistance to including MLM in the lead now is from one editor who seems to think that it's an issue of WP:UNDUE, which I vehemently disagree with. The company is an MLM; MLM is an important defining characteristic; and that MLM company is what VS is arguably most famous for -- he's even referred to in the press as the king of MLM and the baron of MLM. It strikes me as profoundly illogical, and whitewashing, to not include it in the lead. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Why is this term so important when it doesn’t even have a legally agreed-upon definition? It doesn’t belong in the lede of the BLP. Indeed, to include that legally disputed term in the lede violates the instruction that a lede section should be written “with a neutral point of view.” And because there is no agreed-upon legal definition of the term, including it in the lede necessarily brings in “ontentious material . . . that is . . . poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable” and it “should be removed immediately.” Thus, contrary to your statement, the fact that there is no legally agreed-upon definition is in no way “completely irrelevant”—just the opposite: it directly supports the position that the term should be excluded from the lede. Jurisdicta (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Interesting that you used the term whitewashing because I find that your summary of the situation does just that. I reviewed the RFC and nine editors (previously involved and uninvolved) supported keeping it out of the lead. You’re now trying to make it appear that virtually nobody was in support of keeping it out of the lead, which is simply not true. You also inaccurately wrote the Administrator “merely serves as a vote counter who summarizes the consensus.” C’mon. Nobody believes that ridiculous statement. And lastly, it’s little wonder that you’re not interested in a “recap of the conversation 7 years ago,” since the Admin's gave reasons for the decision, ruled against your opinions, and interpreted WP policy completely different than you.
Another key point: After the RFC closed and discord followed, Lord Roem wrote on page 6 of the Talk Page Archive (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_6) , “So there is no confusion, I closed the RfC as "No Consensus for Inclusion". Without consensus to use the term, policy mandates that it be excluded. Please stop edit warring this change. Anything else (besides the term MLM) should be discussed here if a change is contested.”
In another statement, he wrote: “The RfC asked whether the term "multi-level marketing" should be used. Because there was no consensus, that term must be excluded. My explanation for that was in the close above. Additionally, my closure of the RfC is an administrative action and does not make me involved. Nor does a suggestion that any disputed changes besides the use of the MLM term should be discussed here on the talk page. Now, you are free to continue discussing the addition of the term to generate a new consensus, nothing about that RfC bars that. But until that time, you may not add in the contested term.”
When pushed yet again, the Admin wrote, “I'm not getting drawn in to any discussion of the merits of the issue because I have no opinion about the full merits of the issue. I will consider it disruptive to continue to add in a term which may violate our BLP policy after I have already warned you against doing just that.
For the record, who were the two editors arguing the hardest in the RFC and then who vehemently disagreed with the Admin? It just happens to be the two editors who are here doing it again, falsely claiming a consensus. No wonder you want to disregard the previous RFC, despite the Admin’s ruling that the “may violate our BLP policy.” This Misplaced Pages Administrator took strong positions on this exact topic, and he literally warned you against it and wrote "you may not add in the contested term." Pistongrinder (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Again, not interested in the recap (which ignored that a super-majority of uninvolved editors supported inclusion) of the discussion from 7 years ago. Only interested in the current discussion about your precise policy position on the issue of MLM in the lead, which seems to be WP:UNDUE. I don't agree but just want clarity before we open this up to a broader audience to see if we can reach a consensus. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Based on RfC verdict, there probably shouldn't be a descriptor for the company in the lede at all. That obviously is taken care of in a later section. But if there were to be descriptor for the company in the lede, it would be appropriate to describe it in the way that the Associated Press does. The AP is a neutral source of factual, accurate reporting. 1. "VanderSloot is the founder of the wellness shopping club Melaleuca":https://apnews.com/61b493a32a79bcce29afdfd6fd33c4ad 2. “Billionaire Frank VanderSloot, founder of Idaho Falls-based wellness shopping club Melaleuca, https://apnews.com/1be9cfee5e26ff7c4f301ecb5551e0a7 3. VanderSloot, founder and chief executive of the health care products company Melaleuca, https://apnews.com/740cad4f38334593b502bc9927af8a8f/Idaho-billionaire-VanderSloot-staying-out-of-governor's-race. None of these AP reporters use "multilevel marketing" to describe Melaleuca. Although some editors here claim that MLM is the most distinguishing element of vandersloot and his company, that's not how the Associated Press writes it. Since we're trying to create an unbiased POV on a BLP, we should look at these examples.Writethisway (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The RfC saw no significant opposition regarding the company being an MLM. That point is well established and was widely agreed upon -- the only issue was whether or not in belonged in the lead. APs wording is an isolated non-representative example. It is not widely referred to as a "wellness shopping club" nor does that term have any tangible encyclopedic meaning, so that would not be a step in the right direction IMO. It certainly has nothing to do with "health care" -- that's quite absurd. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
My point wasn’t to push an alternate term for the lede, but rather show that journalists at top news sites like the Associated Press refer to it in ways that usually don't include the term MLM. In addition to examples from the Associated Press, here’s a recent USA Today reference - “billionaire Frank Vandersloot, founder of wellness shopping club Melaleuca” (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/50-states/2020/04/26/businesses-reopen-parked-planes-coughing-criminals-hasbro-masks-news-around-states/111626130/) Another example is in today’s Idaho Statesman. It says “Frank VanderSloot, CEO of Melaleuca Inc., an Idaho Falls wellness-products maker”. Contrary to your previous statement, singling-out the "MLM" term as the most defining characteristic is not accurate as the Associated Press, USA Today and Idaho Statesman stories show. Since it’s not how these top news sites call it, it’s unneeded for the lede section.Writethisway (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
In the last RfC, the fact that the company is an MLM was recognized by broad consensus. The issue ultimately boiled down to whether or not including the term in the lead was WP:UNDUE, not whether or not the company is an MLM, and while 4 out of uninvolved editors supported inclusion in the lead, the admin, for reasons that are still murky, claimed that there was insufficient consensus for inclusion in the lead. It’s also clear that while the company is an MLM, Vandersloot apparently prefers that it not be referred to as such because of (well-deserved) negative public perceptions about MLM, and the press sometimes obliges by using other nebulous terms, or even ridiculous non-encyclopedic promotional language (like “wellness shopping club” in your example), but that doesn’t change the facts/reality nor the conclusions of the last RfC. I think the only way we’ll get consensus on this matter is through another RfC and input from uninvolved editors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Wow! A far-fetched claim to say Vandersloot has the power to “oblige” journalists from top news sites like the Associated Press and USA Today to write a certain way about Melaleuca. Where’s the proof for that conspiracy theory?Writethisway (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Rhode Island Red – Your last post concedes my point that because “MLM” lacks a legally agreed-upon meaning, it should not be in the lead. Specifically, your post criticizes some reporters (including reporters from the Associated Press(!)) for using the term “wellness shopping club” because, to use your phrase, that term is “non-encyclopedic.” If a “non-encyclopedic” term should not be used to describe Melaleuca, a term with no legally agreed-upon meaning should likewise not be used to describe the company—especially in the lead of a Misplaced Pages article about a living person. Your post also editorializes about MLMs (“(well-deserved) negative public perceptions”), confirming that the term, which, again lacks any kind of legally agreed-upon meaning (or any non-legal agreed-upon meaning, for that matter), is not a neutral one and is thus, inappropriate for the lead. But you are right on one point: nothing in the current debate changes the facts/reality or conclusions of the last RfC. That reasoned decision came out against your position, and you’ve offered no basis—apart from calling the admin’s explanation “murky”—why another RfC is warranted at this point. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I conceded nothing of the kind and I find this argument about legal definitions perplexing to the extreme. It is an arbitrary construct and has no basis in WP policy (or logic, I would argue). Aside from that, the fact that Melaleuca was overwhelmingly recognized as an MLM in the RfC bypasses the legal argument completely – i.e., definition of MLM notwithstanding, the WP editorial community by consensus agreed that it is an MLM.
The admins reasoning was murky because it went against the conclusions of the 4 out of 5 uninvolved editors (a super-majority) who supported inclusion in the lead, and getting the input of uninvolved editors is arguably the most important goal of an RfC. The fact that specious arguments, expressed vociferously, are being used here now indicates precisely why another RfC may be needed, and no permission is needed to launch one. RfC should be warmly embraced, as the more editors involved, the better the article, typically at least. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems that there are potential user conduct issues here that are impeding the editorial process on this article. We now have 3 user different accounts fighting vehemently against inclusion of MLM in the lead, but it appears that all are novice editors and all are WP:SLEEPER accounts reactivated in the past couple of weeks.

  • Writethisway: Sleeper account reactivated in mid-June/2020 after being dormant for more than 2 years (144 total edits since registering 11/4/2015)
  • Jurisdicta: Sleeper account reactivated in mid-June/2020 after being dormant for more than 1 year (474 total edits since registering 8/28/2014)
  • Pistongrinder: Sleeper account reactivated in mid-June/2020 after being dormant for 6 months (1,206 total edits since registering 8/8/2014)

Oddly, all of these users seems to have an acquaintance with WP policies and this article’s history that goes well beyond what one would expect from greenhorn editors. Just sounding the warning that if there is any obstruction from these users going forward, the next step will be a user conduct RfC. I don’t know if the issues we’re having here are due to the inexperience of these editors with WP P&Ps or if it goes beyond that, but it’s clear that there’s no point going through the motions of consensus building until this issue is resolved. Since this is a user conduct issue rather than a editorial issue, there is no point in engaging in further discussion about it on this talk page, but it is important that other editors be made aware of the background details and the implications. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If I didn't know any better, it would be possible to read your statement as some sort of compliment because apparently it's unusual for a "greenhorn editor" like me to have an understanding of WP policies. Here's my secret to figuring it out so well: I know how to read and google. And given the global crisis, I have a little time on my hands. Maybe you do too?!Writethisway (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@RhodeIslandRed - Your conspiracy theories hardly deserve my time or response. And I know how argumentative you can be: we’ve tangled on this page over the years. But to correct the record, I want to make it clear that you’re the one that recently jumpstarted this page after years of minor activity to re-start the same debate you lost before.
It is beyond curious to me that you're the most dominant editor of this page (39% authorship), yet you’re trying to call me out for making a couple of recent edits—edits that were only intended to preserve the status quo and follow the prior RfC process. You've made 543 edits to the page, while I've made 4.
It seems that your M.O. is to attempt to intimidate, criticize, and dismiss anybody who has a difference of opinion with you. You did that to me years ago when I originally founded this page, and you’re trying to do it again. Anybody who looks at this situation will see your actions appear very close to page ownership WP:OWNERSHIP. Pistongrinder (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
No one advanced a conspiracy theory and your response (accusation of WP:OWN) is bizarre to say the least, given that it was I who suggested getting more experienced editors involved to resolve the dispute in an RfC. However, the consensus building process is only effective when the people involved have enough experience to understand WP policies and keep their biases in check. That doesn’t seem to be the case here. The counterarguments advanced so far (e.g., MLM doesn’t have a legal definition, etc.) are tendentious to say the least. No need to get up in arms about the suggestion to invite a broader group of experienced editors to weigh in; that’s how WP is supposed to function.
The current dispute boils down to 2 very simple points: (1) it is established that the company is an MLM according to multiple WP:RS and as recognized by a broad consensus of editors, and this detail has been included in the body text of the article for roughly 7 years; (2) as such, why would it be undue to include that simple and notable descriptor in the lead, the same way that is in articles on every other MLM? All the complaining and gnashing of teeth over this is completely unnecessary and a distraction since it’s a very simple editorial question at hand. No need for histrionics, just well thought out feedback from unbiased editors who understand WP P&Ps. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
It is fascinating to watch how quickly you change tactics. After you get shutdown on the substance of the debate, you resort to ad hominem attacks, calling people “sleeper accounts.” Just as quickly, when those you call “sleeper accounts” point out how transparently biased you are on this subject (543 edits to 4!), you turn again to your tired arguments on the merits of this issue. It gives one whiplash. How can you seriously accuse others of “gnashing of teeth” and “histrionics” when your editing and talk history reveals a near obsession on the person and company? You don’t get to own this page and accuse others of improprieties when they push back on you.Jurisdicta (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Yet another comment that avoids confronting the simple fundamental editorial question posed above. Yes histrionics indeed; and not constructive. The accounts were referred to as sleepers because that is what they are by WP definition, and feigned indignation doesn't change that fact. Again, just focus on the editorial issue please. Want to get all the sleepers positions on record before this moves to RfC. Rhode Island Red (talk)
Categories: